D 

6/9 

L.47 


GIFT  OF 


■      / 


GIFT 
M       30  1916 


America  and  the  War 


LETTERS      AND      COMMENTS      WRITTEN      FOR 
PUBLICATION    IN    THE    PRESS. 


tf\         OF  THE 

'of 


Reprinted  by 
MAURICE  LEON 

60  Wall  Street,    New  York. 


l^^wi^w* 


£. 


INDEX. 


Pages 
Beginning  of  the  German  Movement  in  Con- 
gress    1-15 

Belgium 16-23 

A  weapon  against  German  political  plots . . .  24-28 

The   record   at  Washington  after  eighteen 
months  of  war , 29-41 

'  Reprisals ' '  as  bearing  on  the  Lusitania  Set- 
tlement   42-45 

Merchant  vessels  armed  for  defense 46-55 

Armed  Traders  and  Privateers 55-59 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

Microsoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/americawarletterOOIeonrich 


BEGINNING  OF  THE  GERMAN  MOVEMENT 
IN  CONGRESS. 


REPRINTED  FROM  TEE  NEW  YORK  SUN 
OF  DECEMBER  15, 1914. 


SEES  GERMAN  HAND  IN  PLAN  TO  PUT 
EMBARGO  ON  ARMS. 


Maurice  Leon  charges  that  Von  Bernstorff  inspired 

the    Congressman   who   introduced   the 

Bills  in  Washington. 


Could  only  injure  the  Allied  Nations. 


Intimations  that  Congressmen  fathering  bills  to 
stop  all  contraband  exports  are  in  reality  agents 
of  Germany  acting  under  advice  of  German 
diplomats  in  this  country  were  made  yesterday  by 
Maurice  Leon,  of  60  Wall  Street.  Mr.  Leon  in 
discussing  The  Sun's  report  of  Representative 
Bartholdt's  advocacy  of  legislation  forbidding 
all  shipments  to  belligerents,  declared  that  "such 
an  unequivocal  espousal  of  Germany's  interests 
calls  for  immediate  exposure,  inasmuch  as  dupli- 
city in  such  important  matters  affects  the  vital 
interests  and  even  the  permanent  safety  of  the 
American  people.' y 

Mr.  Leon  gave  his  views  of  the  activities  of 
Congressmen  of  German  descent,  as  follows : 

"Representatives  Bartholdt,  Lobeck  and  Voll- 
mer,  when  they  speak  of  forcing  an  end  to  the  war 
by  cutting  off  all  supplies  from  belligerents,  know 
well  that  no  supplies  in  any  case  can  reach  Ger- 
many. Therefore,  by  '  belligerents i  they  mean 
1  allies  \ 

349121 


2 

' '  This  is  a  characteristic  German  manoeuver.  I 
have  no  doubt  but  that  these  three  Congressmen 
are  carrying  out  the  expressed  wishes  of  Count 
von  Bernstoff,  the  German  ambassador  to  this 
country,  and  Dr.  Bernard  Dernburg,  the  German 
publicist. 

"In  view  of  the  activities  of  Representatives 
Bartholdt,  Lobeck  and  Vollmer,  it  is  important 
to  consider  whether  the  allegiance  of  these  gentle- 
men is  primarily  to  the  United  States  or  to  Ger- 
many. Their  silence  is  transparent.  They  are 
acting  as  agents  of  the  German  Government  in 
Congress.  What  they  do  dovetails  with  the  ac- 
tivities of  the  German  ambassador. 

"A  true  explanation  of  the  whole  matter  is 
found  in  the  principle  laid  down  in  the  German 
imperial  and  state  citizenship  law,  article  25, 
paragraph  2. 

"This  law  sanctions  the  following  practices: 
A  German  desiring  to  exercise  the  franchise  of 
this  country  goes  to  the  German  consul,  and  from 
him  obtains  the  written  consent  of  the  German 
authorities  to  retain  his  German  citizenship,  not- 
withstanding his  naturalization. 

"Having  done  that,  he  goes  before  a  court  in 
this  country  and  takes  an  oath  of  allegiance  which, 
according  to  our  laws,  requires  him  expressly  to 
foreswear  allegiance  to  the  German  Empire.  But 
that  oath  is  not  taken  by  him  in  good  faith.  He 
is  not  engaged  in  reality  in  becoming  an  American 
citizen,  but  in  acquiring  the  right  to  use  the 
American  franchise  although  remaining  a  German 
subject. 

"In  this  way  the  German  Government  connives 
at  wholesale  deception  on  the  American  Govern- 
ment, and  does  so  with  the  sanction  of  a  law  duly 
adopted  by  the  Reichstag  and  bearing  the  signa- 
ture of  the  German  Emperor. 

"The  attitude  of  mind  which  this  situation  has 
engendered  is  admirably  illustrated  by  two  recent 
articles  of  Dr.  Dernburg.    In  the  current  issue  of 


The  North  American  Review  he  shows  Germany 
in  an  attitude  of  injured  innocence  protesting  that 
she  has  nothing  to  gain  and  wishes  to  gain  nothing 
by  the  war,  while  in  the  Independent  for  Decem- 
ber 7th  Dr.  Dernburg  discusses  the  terms  upon 
which  Germany  would  make  peace,  mentioning 
that  Germany  merely  wants  the  Baltic  Provinces, 
Antwerp  (which  Dr.  Dernburg,  although  formerly 
a  Colonial  Secretary,  locates  on  the  Ehine),  cus- 
toms control  of  Belgium,  Morocco,  a  sphere  of 
influence  in  Asia  Minor  from  the  Persian  Gulf  to 
the  Dardanelles  and,  as  presents  to  Germany's 
friends,  Egypt  for  Turkey  and  Finland  for 
Sweden.  If  it  is  the  same  Dr.  Dernburg  who 
writes  both  of  these  articles,  he  must  have  a  dual 
personality  comparable  to  the  dual  nationality  of 
the  German-Americans  represented  by  Herr 
Bartholdt,  Herr  Lobeck  and  Herr  Vollmer. 


REPRINTED  FROM  NEW  YORK  SUN  OF  DE- 
CEMBER 17,  1914. 


NOT     KAISER'S     AGENTS,     SAYS     HOUSE 
MEMBERS. 


Bartholdt,  Vollmer  and  Lobeck  on  Floor  Deny 
Bernstorff  Prompted  Bills. 


Think  U.  S.  Could  End  War 


Washington,  Dec.  16.  —  An  interview  with 
Maurice  Leon  that  appeared  in  The  Sun  on  De- 
cember 15  charging  that  Eepresentatives  Bar- 
tholdt of  Missouri,  Vollmer  of  Iowa  and  Lobeck 
of  Nebraska,  all  men  of  German  extraction,  are 


"  acting  as  agents  of  the  German  Government  in 
Congress' '  prompted  each  of  the  three  members 
named  to  rise  in  the  House  to-day  to  a  question 
of  personal  privilege. 

Mr.  Leon  pointed  out  that  Messrs.  Bartholdt, 
Vollmer  and  Lobeck  had  introduced  bills  prohibit- 
ing the  shipment  of  contraband.  He  declared  this 
to  be  a  characteristic  "German  manoeuvre,"  ex- 
pressed his  opinion  that  the  three  members  were 
carrying  out  the  wishes  of  the  German  Ambas- 
sador and  asserted  that  it  was  important  to  con- 
sider "whether  the  allegiance  of  these  gentlemen 
is  primarily  to  the  United  States  or  to  Germany. ' ' 

In  their  speeches  to-day  the  three  accused  men 
denied  emphatically  that  they  had  consulted  Am- 
bassador Bernstorff  relative  to  their  bills  pro- 
hibiting the  shipment  of  contraband.  They  ex- 
pressed great  resentment  over  the  suggestion  that 
there  was  doubt  as  to  their  loyalty  to  the  United 
States. 

They  particularly  took  exception  to  the  state- 
ment of  Mr.  Leon  that  under  a  law  of  Germany 
a  German  naturalized  in  this  country  may  "re- 
tain his  German  citizenship  notwithstanding  his 
naturalization. ' ' 

American  Flag  His  Only  Flag. 

Mr.  Bartholdt  had  read  to  the  House  The  Sun 
interview  and  he  entered  a  general  denial  of  the 
charges  made  by  Mr.  Leon,  asserting  that  they 
emanated  "from  the  New  York  spokesman  of  a 
foreign  belligerent  Power  which  according  to  re- 
ports would  be  at  its  rope's  end  but  for  the  con- 
traband it  receives  from  the  United  States."  He 
proclaimed  his  loyalty,  declaring  that  he  was  l '  for 
America  against  England,  for  America  against 
Germany,  for  America  against  the  world," 
adding : 

"If  the  Star  Spangled  Banner  is  not  my  flag, 
then  I  have  no  flag." 


Mr.  Bartholdt  denied  that  he  ever  had  com- 
mitted an  unneutral  act  or  uttered  an  unneutral 
word.  He  explained  that  he  introduced  the  bill 
that  provoked  Mr.  Leon  to  criticism  as  a  means 
of  effecting  peace,  arguing  that  if  the  belligerents 
were  denied  the  opportunity  to  get  supplies  in  this 
country  the  war  would  soon  come  to  an  end.  He 
said  he  had  met  the  German  Ambassador  only 
once  in  the  last  year,  and  that  was  a  chance 
meeting. 

"  There  is  a  more  serious  side  to  this  matter, 
a  graver  accusation,  involving  an  insult  not  only 
to  the  millions  of  Germans  who  have  acquired 
citizenship  in  this  country  but  also  to  the  German 
Government, ' '  said  Mr.  Bartholdt.  "I  refer  to 
the  assertion  that  there  is  a  law  on  the  statute 
books  of  Germany  which  makes  it  possible  for  a 
man  to  become  naturalized  here  and  yet  retain  his 
German  citizenship,  an  assertion  coupled  with  the 
insinuation,  almost  incredible  in  its  mendacity, 
that  the  Germans  are  taking  advantage  of  this 
situation  and  when  taking  the  oath  of  allegiance 
do  not  do  it  in  good  faith. 

"The  facts  are  simply  these:  Germany,  like 
every  other  country,  has  a  law  which  makes  it 
possible  for  those  who  are  away  from  the  father- 
land to  retain  their  citizenship  by  reporting  within 
ten  years  to  a  German  Consul,  but  when  so  re- 
porting they  must  make  oath  that  they  have  not 
acquired  or  taken  steps  to  acquire  citizenship  in 
any  other  country." 

Believes  U.  S.  Can  Stop  War. 

Touching  on  the  merits  of  his  resolution,  Mr. 
Bartholdt  said: 

"It  is  my  deliberate  judgment  that  the  United 
States  now  has  the  power  to  stop  the  war  by  with- 
holding from  the  belligerent  nations  the  sinews  of 
war.  Surely  the  advantages  of  hastening  the  time 
when  the  whole  world  will  be  again  thrown  open 


6 


to  our  cotton  and  all  other  American  products  will 
outweigh  a  hundred  times  the  temporary  profits 
which  a  few  manufacturers  are  now  reaping,  and 
besides  we  would  thus  give  proof  to  the  world  of 
the  sincerity  of  our  desire  for  peace,  a  sincerity 
which  can  be  justly  questioned  while  we  are 
merely  praying  for  peace  and  at  the  same  time 
sending  dumdum  bullets  to  kill  Germans  and 
Austrians.,, 

Mr.  Bartholdt  said  that  there  would  be  a  "  here- 
after' '  if  the  United  States  persisted  in  selling 
goods  to  the  warring  nations  of  Europe.  He  said 
there  would  come  a  time  when  the  "  Anglo- 
Japanese  alliance' '  would  be  " ready  for  busi- 
ness," and  he  suggested  that  then  "  maybe  the 
friendship  of  Germany  will  come  in  handy." 

Mr.  Lobeck  repudiated  the  suggestion  that  in 
offering  his  bill  he  was  influenced  by  consider- 
ations of  friendship  for  Germany  or  enmity  to- 
ward the  Allies.  He  said  he  offered  the  bill  as  a 
peace  measure  and  insisted  that  a  stoppage  in  the 
shipment  of  contraband  would  effect  that  end. 

"It  is  more  than  probable,"  said  Mr.  Lobeck, 
"that  the  man  who  ascribes  to  me  the  condition 
of  being  a  traitor  to  this  country  is  not  himself 
an  American  citizen.  The  chances  are  that  if 
Uncle  Sam  called  us  to  follow  the  flag  he  would  be 
the  first  to  duck  out  into  the  Atlantic  Ocean  to 
get  away. 

"Scoundrel,"  Says  Vollmer. 

Representative  Vollmer  was  more  personal. 
He  said  he  arose  "to  throw  back  into  the  teeth 
of  the  scoundrel  who  concocted  this  miserable 
falsehood  aimed  at  my  two  distinguished  col- 
leagues and  myself  in  particular  and  the  American 
citizens  of  German  birth  or  descent  in  general. 

"I  deem  it  my  duty  publicly  to  reply  to  these 
infamous  charges  which  have  been  given  such 
widespread  notoriety  by  the  great  newspaper  in 


which  they  appeared, ' '  he  continued.  ' '  I  was  born 
in  this  country  in  the  good  old  State  of  Iowa.  I 
am  not  given  to  boasting  about  my  American 
patriotism,  but  I  will  back  it  against  that  of  any 
dirty,  purchasable  penny  a  liner  who  ever  tore  to 
tatters  the  reputation  of  honest  men. ' ' 


REPRINTED  FROM  THE  NEW  YORK  SUN 
OF  DECEMBER  18, 1914. 

LEON  REPLIES  TO  HIS  HOUSE  CRITICS 


Hints   Bartholdt,   Vollmer   and  Lobeck   Try  to 
Deceive  Congress. 


Quotes  From  German  Law. 

The  following  is  the  reply  of  Maurice  Leon  to 
the  attacks  made  upon  him  yesterday  in  the  House 
of  Representatives  by  Congressmen  Bartholdt, 
Vollmer  and  Lobeck: 

"All  the  vituperation  of  Messrs.  Bartholdt, 
Vollmer  and  Lobeck  will  avail  them  nothing.  Such 
epithets  as  'liar'  and  i scoundrel,'  which  they  find 
it  convenient  to  utter  in  the  shelter  of  the  House 
of  Representatives,  have  become  a  sort  of  Iron 
Cross  which  Pan-Germans  bestow  upon  their  op- 
ponents and  are  gratefully  accepted  as  such.  It 
is  amazing  to  find  that  these  Pan-Germans  in  Con- 
gress have  been  driven  to  such  desperate  devices 
as  actually  to  try  to  deceive  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives concerning  the  tenor  and  effect  of  the 
German  citizenship  law,  the  text  of  that  law, 
which  was  adopted  by  the  Reichstag  and  Bundes- 
rath  and  signed  on  July  22,  1913,  by  the  Ger- 
man Emperor  at  Balholm  on  board  the  yacht 
Hohenzollern,  is  found  in  the  supplement  of  the 


8 


American  Journal  of  International  Law  of  July, 
1914.  Paragraph  2  in  Article  25  of  that  law  reads 
as  follows: 

"  'Citizenship  is  not  lost  by  one  who,  before 
acquiring  foreign  citizenship,  has  secured  on  ap- 
plication the  written  consent  of  the  competent  au- 
thorities of  his  home  State  to  retain  his  citizen- 
ship. Before  this  consent  is  given  the  German 
Counsel  is  to  be  heard. ' 

Secret  German  Allegiance. 

' '  That  same  law  has  provisions  whereby  one 
who,  like  Mr.  Vollmer,  was  born  in  Iowa  of  a 
German  father,  may  secretly  contract  German 
allegiance  without  establishing  a  German  resi- 
dence. These  provisions  are  contained  in  Ar- 
ticle 13,  sanctioning  the  re-Germanization  of 
'a  former  German  who  has  not  taken  up  his  resi- 
dence in  Germany, '  with  the  proviso:  'The  same 
applies  to  one  who  is  descended  from  a  former 
German  or  has  been  adopted  as  a  child  of  such. ' 

"There  is  reason  to  believe  that  the  law  merely 
sanctioned  an  existing  practice.  Now  these  Con- 
gressmen even  deny  the  existence  of  such  a  law. 

"According  to  the  newspapers  Mr.  Bartholdt 
made  yesterday  the  following  statement  concern- 
ing the  effect  of  that  law : 

"  'The  facts  are  simply  these:  Germany,  like 
every  other  country,  has  a  law  which  makes  it  pos- 
sible for  those  who  are  away  from  the  Fatherland 
to  retain  their  citizenship  by  reporting  within  ten 
years  to  a  German  Consul,  but  when  so  reporting 
they  must  make  oath  that  they  have  not  acquired 
or  taken  steps  to  acquire  citizenship  in  any  other 
country. ' 

"Let  unhyphenated  Americans  compare  Mr. 
Bartholdt 's  words  with  the  words  of  the  law  and 
judge  for  themselves  whether  Mr.  Bartholdt  was 
or  was  not  endeavoring  to  deceive  his  colleagues 
in  the  House  of  Representatives  concerning  a  mat- 


9 


ter  of  vital  consequence  to  the  American  Govern- 
ment. 

1 '  Mr.  Bartholdt  makes  a  denial  that  he  has  been 
conferring  with  the  German  Ambassador,  a 
charge  that  has  not  been  made,  but  he  cannot  and 
does  not  deny  the  fact  that  his  activities  as  a  Con- 
gressman dovetail  with  those  of  the  German  Am- 
bassador. 

Alleges  Work  for  Germany  in  House. 

"The  newspapers  have  published  during  the 
last  week  items  to  the  effect  first,  that  the  German 
Ambassador  has  charged  American  manufactur- 
ers with  delivering  dumdum  bullets  to  the  British 
Government  by  the  million;  second,  that  the  Amer- 
ican manufacturers  named  by  the  German  Am- 
bassador have  absolutely  denied  that  there  is  any 
truth  in  his  assertion  and  have  invited  him  to 
retract  it  or  furnish  proof;  third,  that  the  German 
Ambassador  replied  that  he  had  the  proof,  but 
has  not  furnished  it.  While  this  was  going  on 
Representatives  Bartholdt,  Vollmer  and  Lobeck 
were  actually  engaged  in  their  endeavor  to  line 
up  the  German  Americans  behind  the  attempt  to 
force  through  Congress  legislation  the  effect  of 
which  would  be  practically  to  enlist  the  services 
of  the  United  States  as  the  ally  of  Germany,  Aus- 
tria and  Turkey.  It  is  a  fact  of  public  notoriety 
that  in  that  endeavor  they  are  enjoying  the  active 
support  of  Mr.  Viereck,  editor  of  an  organ  which 
may  be  regarded  as  the  mouthpiece  of  an  invisible 
government  established  by  Germany  in  these 
United  States  to  rule  over  the  German  American 
population,  the  head  of  which  is  Mr.  Bernhard 
Dernburg,  former  German  Cabinet  Minister,  now 
acting  as  a  sort  of  local  viceroy  over  numerous 
organizations  in  this  country  embraced  in  the 
Deutsche  Americanische  Verbund. 

"Let  us  take  this  opportunity  to  assure  these 
German  American  representatives  that  the  view 


10 


which  I  have  expressed  and  am  expressing  I  hold 
very  positively  in  my  personal  capacity  as  an  un- 
hyphenated American  citizen,  and  that  in  any 
event  I  do  not  draw  pay  from  the  Treasury  of 
the  United  States  for  the  purpose  of  doing  in  this 
country  the  labor  of  love  which  consists  in  oppos- 
ing agents  of  Pan-Germanism  in  Congress  who 
draw  pay  from  that  Treasury.  My  sentiments 
in  that  respect  do  not  differ  in  any  wise  from  those 
of  practically  all  Americans  who  do  not  come 
under  the  effect  of  the  German  citizenship  law  to 
which  reference  has  already  been  made,  and  I 
shall  continue  as  long  as  necessary  to  do  my  share 
toward  defeating  every  endeavor  to  use  this  coun- 
try and  the  influence  of  its  Government  for  dis- 
tinctly German  ends,  all  vituperation  from  this 
German  trio  of  Congressmen  notwithstanding. ' ' 


REPRINTED    FROM    THE   N.    Y.    SUN    OF 
DECEMBER  21,  1914. 

GERMAN  REPLY  TO  LEON. 


Embassy  at  Washington  Explains  the  Citizenship 
Problem. 

Washington,  Dec.  20. — The  German  Embassy 
to-day  came  to  the  defence  of  Representatives 
Bartholdt,  Lobeck  and  Vollmer,  who  were  severely 
criticised  by  Maurice  Leon  of  New  York  in  a 
statement  published  in  The  Sun  on  December  15, 
because  of  the  bills  introduced  by  them  to  prohibit 
the  exportation  of  war  materials. 

Mr.  Leon  was  quoted  as  saying  that  under  Ger- 
man law  a  German  subject  in  the  United  States 
might  become  a  naturalized  American  citizen  and 
retain  his  German  citizenship  provided  he  obtains 
consent  to  do  so  from  a  German  Consul  in  this 
country. 


11 


At  the  embassy  it  was  declared  that  Mr.  Leon 
had  misstated  the  effect  of  the  new  German  law 
regarding  naturalization  and  that  under  no  cir- 
cumstances could  the  law  affect  the  citizenship  of 
the  members  of  Congress  named,  because  it  did 
not  go  into  effect  until  January  1,  1914. 

The  law  referred  to  by  Mr.  Leon  is  declared  by 
the  embassy  to  be  as  follows : 

'  *  A  German  who  has  neither  his  domicile  nor  his 
permanent  abode  within  the  empire  loses  his 
(German)  nationality  upon  the  acquisition  of  a 
foreign  nationality  provided  such  acquisition 
takes  place  upon  his  application  or  (in  case  of 
married  women  or  minors)  upon  the  application 
of  the  husband  or  legal  representative. 

"However,  a  person  who  before  acquiring  a 
foreign  nationality  has  received  upon  his  applica- 
tion the  written  permission  of  the  (competent) 
home  authority  (of  his  native  State)  that  he  may 
retain  his  (German)  nationality  shall  not  lose  it. 
Before  such  permission  is  granted  the  (competent) 
German  Consul  has  to  be  heard  (on  this  case). 

"The  Chancellor  with  the  consent  of  the  Bun- 
desrat  may  decree  that  the  above  mentioned  per- 
mission be  generally  withheld  with  regard  to  per- 
sons who  desire  to  acquire  the  nationality  of  cer- 
tain foreign  states.' ' 

The  wording  of  the  law,  it  is  declared  at  the 
embassy,  leaves  no  doubt  about  the  general  rule 
that  a  German  subject  who  voluntarily  acquires  a 
foreign  nationality  loses  thereby  his  German  na- 
tionality. As  for  the  exception  from  the  general 
rule  it  deserves  to  be  mentioned  that  not  the 
German  consular  officers  abroad,  as  Mr.  Leon  al- 
leges, but  the  competent  home  authorities,  after 
hearing  the  competent  Consul's  opinion  on  the 
particular  case,  have  the  power  to  permit  a  Ger- 
man contemplating  naturalization  in  another 
country  to  retain  his  German  nationality. 

Such  permission,  it  is  stated,  can  be  granted 


12 


only  since  January  1,  1914,  to  Germans  before 
they  have  taken  out  their  naturalization  papers 
in  another  country,  not  after  they  have  already 
become  citizens  of  another  State. 

"With  this,"  the  embassy  states  "Mr.  Leon's 
allegations  with  regard  to  certain  American  citi- 
zens of  German  descent  who  for  decades  have 
lived  in  this  country  fall  absolutely  to  the 
ground. ' p 


REPRINTED  FROM  THE  NEW  YORK  SUN 
OF  DECEMBER  22, 1914 

UNSAFE  TO  NATURALIZE  GERMANS,  SAYS 
MR.  LEON. 


Replies  to  Embassy's  Explanation  of  German  Law 
of  Allegiance. 


Maurice  Leon  of  60  Wall  Street,  replying  last 
night  to  the  statement  issued  by  the  German 
Embassy  in  Washington  on  Sunday  in  defence  of 
Representatives  Bartholdt,  Lobeck  and  Vollmer, 
said: 

"The  German  Embassy  does  not  deny,  but  on 
the  contrary  expressly  admits,  the  existence  of 
the  German  law  whereby  a  German  subject  about 
to  apply  for  naturalization  in  a  foreign  country 
may  make  an  arrangement  with  the  German 
authorities  whereby  his  oath  of  allegiance  to  the 
country  for  whose  nationality  he  is  about  to  apply 
is  treated  as  a  scrap  of  paper. 

' '  The  only  contention  made  is  that  the  law  went 
into  effect  on  January  1,  1914;  that  it  has  no 
retroactive  application;  hence,  that  Representa- 
tives Bartholdt,  Lobeck  and  Vollmer  could  not 
under  that  particular  provision  of  Article  25  have 
retained  their  German  allegiance. 


13 


"But  what  the  embassy's  statement  overlooks 
is  that  in  the  same  law  there  is  another  provision, 
namely  Article  13,  whereby  a  former  German  or 
the  descendants  of  a  former  German  (without 
limitation  as  to  the  number  of  generations  be- 
tween the  descendants  and  the  German  father) 
may  without  the  establishment  of  a  residence  in 
Germany  acquire  German  nationality. 

"Another  consideration  applicable  to  Article 
XXV.  is  that  the  question  whether  or  not  it  is 
retroactive  does  not  in  any  wise  meet  the  objection 
that  it  provides  for  a  surreptitious  retention  of 
German  nationality  by  a  covenant  to  which  the 
German  Government  is  a  party,  in  the  making  of 
which  German  Consuls,  enjoying  our  hospitality, 
are  expressly  provided  to  intervene,  which  cove- 
nant is  entered  into  in  express  contemplation  of 
the  taking  of  an  oath  which  is  absolutely  incon- 
sistent with  any  retention  of  the  prior  nationality. 
The  oath  of  allegiance  provided  for  by  our  laws 
is  to  the  effect  that  the  applicant  forever  for- 
swears all  allegiance  to  his  country  of  origin. 

"Upon  the  very  showing  of  the  German  Em- 
bassy we  would  not  be  safe  in  extending  natural- 
ization to  any  German  while  the  German  law 
which  went  into  effect  on  January  1, 1914,  remains 
in  force." 


REPRINTED  FROM  TEE  NEW  YORK  SUN 
OF  DECEMBER  23, 1914. 

THE  UNITED  STATES  AND  THE  GERMAN 
DUAL  CITIZENSHIP  LAW. 

(Editorial) 

Much  as  Maurice  Leon  may  differ  from  the 
German  sympathizers  with  whom  he  has  recently 
been  in  controversy,  they  are  in  agreement  on  one 
point  of  vital  interest  to  Americans.  It  is  that 
under  certain  circumstances  a  German  may  obtain 


14 

citizenship  in  a  foreign  country  without  forfeiting 
his  citizenship  in  Germany.  Mr.  Leon  quotes  the 
law  of  July,  1913,  as  it  appeared  in  the  American 
Journal  of  International  Law  for  July  of  this 
year : 

"Citizenship  is  not  lost  by  one  who,  before  ac- 
quiring foreign  citizenship,  has  secured  on  appli- 
cation the  written  consent  of  the  competent  au- 
thorities of  his  home  State  to  retain  his  citizen- 
ship. Before  this  consent  is  given  the  German 
Consul  is  to  be  heard. ' ' 

There  is  no  question  of  Germany's  entire  com- 
petence and  right  to  make  this  arrangement  for 
her  sons  domiciled  in  foreign  lands.  The  conserv- 
ation of  her  political  interests  is  a  matter  for  her 
own  wisdom  and  prevision.  But  the  effect  of  such 
a  law  on  the  citizenship  of  this  country  is  a  subject 
that  must  engage  our  earnest  study,  and  if  neces- 
sary cause  the  revision  of  our  naturalization  sys- 
tem to  prevent  the  erection  within  our  citizenship 
of  a  class  of  fraudulently  hyphenated  Americans 
unlike  any  heretofore  existing. 

Under  our  liberal  practice  an  invitation  is  given 
to  all  men  of  good  disposition  to  acquire  citizen- 
ship. The  alien,  on  filing  his  declaration,  must 
take  oath  that  it  is  bona  fide  his  intention  to  be- 
come a  citizen  of  the  United  States  and  to  re- 
nounce forever  all  allegiance  and  fidelity  to  any 
foreign  State  or  ruler,  and  particularly  to  that  one 
of  which  he  may  be  a  citizen  or  subject.  Similarly, 
on  the  application  for  admission  the  alien  must 
make  oath  that : 

1 '  He  will  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  and  that  he  absolutely  and  entirely  re- 
nounces and  abjures  all  allegiance  and  fidelity  to 
every  foreign  prince,  potentate,  State  or  sove- 
reignty ;  and  particularly,  by  name,  to  the  prince, 
potentate,  State  or  sovereignty  of  which  he  was 
before  a  citizen  or  subject.' ' 

It  will  be  seen  that  this  oath  is  as  searching  and 


15 


inclusive  as  it  well  could  be.  The  renunciation  is 
forever,  absolute  and  entire.  No  provision  is 
made  for  a  temporary  or  limited  renunciation ;  the 
possibility  of  a  dual  citizenship,  or  subject-citi- 
zenship, is  not  contemplated  by  the  law.  Such  a 
division  of  loyalty,  such  a  commingling  of  allegi- 
ances, as  the  retention  of  foreign  citizenship  in 
company  with  American  citizenship,  as  might  be 
accomplished  by  a  German  under  the  terms  of  the 
law  quoted  by  Mr.  Leon,  would  be  repugnant  to 
American  institutions,  subversive  of  American  in- 
terests and  against  our  public  policy. 

That  an  honorable  man  could  subscribe  to 
the  oaths  required  while  reserving  his  original 
citizenship  through  formal  arrangement  with 
his  native  Government  is  incredible.  For 
the  detection  of  dishonorable  men  who  might  at- 
tempt such  an  abuse  the  examination  as  to  fitness 
to  which  each  applicant  is  subjected  offers  ample 
opportunity.  Should  citizenship  be  acquired  by 
fraud,  such  as  false  swearing,  it  may  be  revoked. 
Yet  there  appears  to  be  no  provision  in  our  law 
to  meet  the  exact  conditions  rendered  possible  by 
the  German  statute.  Apparently  the  French 
have  found  themselves  without  a  suitable  remedy 
for  the  same  situation,  and  their  Government  has 
taken  steps  to  provide  means  for  the  cancellation 
of  "  naturalization  papers  granted  to  any  person 
who  shall  have  kept  his  original  nationality." 


16 

BELGIUM. 

REPRINTED  FROM  THE  NEW  YORK  SUN 
OF  AUGUST  30, 1915. 


Mr.  Leon  Comes  to  Colonel  Roosevelt's  Assistance. 

(Editorial) 

Perhaps  the  most  positive  and  persistently  un- 
qualified statement  that  Colonel  Theodoke  Roose- 
velt ever  made  and  reiterated  over  and  over  again 
is  that  the  United  States  has  by  treaty  guaran- 
teed the  inviolability  of  Belgian  territory  and  is 
therefore  now  in  the  shameful  position  of  a  re- 
pudiator  of  contract  engagements  through  the 
failure  of  the  Wilson  Administration  to  intervene 
to  prevent  the  German  invasion,  or,  if  too  late 
for  that,  to  join  in  the  attempt  to  drive  the  in- 
vaders out.  This  assertion  is  the  peg  upon  which 
hangs  at  present  the  Colonel's  entire  political 
stock  in  trade.  His  denunciation  of  the  President 
for  failing  to  do  "our  bounden  duty"  to  Belgium 
is  supported  only  by  a  vague  reference  to  some- 
thing which  he  believes  is  specified  in  one  of  the 
conventions  adopted  at  The  Hague.  When  asked 
to  point  out  the  particular  section  or  article  or 
even  convention  warranting  his  invective  the 
Colonel's  energy  gyrates  in  another  direction. 

Perhaps  even  more  surprising  that  Colonel 
Roosevelt's  own  default  in  the  matter  of  exact 
citation  is  the  failure  of  any  of  his  multitudinous 
admirers  to  hasten  to  his  assistance  with  chapter 
and  verse.  The  nearest  approach  to  first  aid  for 
Colonel  Roosevelt,  singularly  enough,  comes  from 
Mr.  Maurice  Leon,  a  jurisconsult  whose  avowed 
partisanship  and  natural  bias  in  matters  concern- 
ing the  European  combat  is  in  good  measure  bal- 
anced by  his  individual  qualities  of  perception  and 
candor.    Mr.  Leon  writes  to  us  as  follows : 


17 

"May  there  not,  on  consideration,  be  a  good  deal 
to  be  said  in  support  of  the  position  taken  by  Mr. 
Roosevelt?  The  treaty  in  question  is  the  fifth  con- 
vention of  The  Hague,  adopted  in  1907,  the  first 
two  articles  of  which  are  these : 

M  *1,  The  territory  of  neutral  Powers  is  inviol- 
able. ' 

"  '2.  Belligerents  are  forbidden  to  move  troops 
or  convoys  of  either  munitions  of  war  or  supplies 
across  the  territory  of  a  neutral  Power.' 

' '  Germany  and  the  United  States  are  parties  to 
this  treaty,  but,  according  to  The  Sun,  it  is  not 
binding  on  any  of  them  as  to  Belgium  because 
Serbia,  a  belligerent  in  the  present  war,  is  not  a 
signatory  of  the  convention,  which  fact  is  sup- 
posed to  bring  into  operation  the  following  article 
of  the  treaty : 

"  '  18.  The  provisions  of  the  present  convention 
do  not  apply  except  between  contracting  Powers 
and  then  only  if  all  the  belligerents  are  parties  to 
the  convention.' 

"Hence,  in  The  Sun's  view,  Germany  was  not 
bound  by  that  treaty  to  respect  Belgium's  neutral- 
ity, however  true  it  may  be — as  in  The  Sun's  opin- 
ion it  undoubtedly  is — that  she  is  so  bound  by 
treaty  stipulations  to  which  the  United  States  is 
not  a  party,  as  also  by  every  rule  of  international 
decency.  And  hence  further  the  argument  is  that 
if  Germany  was  not  bound  by  the  terms  of  that 
treaty  to  respect  Belgium's  neutrality,  the  United 
States  in  its  turn  was  not  bound  by  the  terms  of 
that  treaty  to  make  Germany  respect  Belgium's 
neutrality. ' ' 

This  is  a  fair  statement,  thus  far,  of  a  fact  first 
pointed  out  by  The  Sun  nearly  a  year  ago,  namely, 
that  the  provision  of  a  treaty  suspending  its  obli- 
gations under  specified  conditions  is  as  valid  and 
as  binding  upon  the  parties  to  the  contract  as  any 
provision  which  it  suspends.  We  should  be  slow 
to  believe  that  Colonel  Roosevelt  is  basing  his 


18 

violent  assertions  on  so  sleazy  a  texture  of  con- 
tractual obligation  as  that  which  Mr.  Leon  gener- 
ously produces  in  his  behalf.  It  must  be  some 
other  part  of  this  Fifth  convention,  or  some  part 
of  some  other  convention,  that  the  Colonel  has 
vaguely  in  mind. 

But  Mr.  Leon's  chivalry  does  not  fail  him  even 
on  uncertain  ground.    He  goes  on  to  say : 

'  *  The  reasoning  may  be  claimed  to  be  logical  as 
far  as  it  goes,  though  all  will  admit  somewhat 
narrow.  But  it  overlooks  a  fundamental  proposi- 
tion which  holds  as  true  as  between  nations  as  it 
does  between  individuals  in  their  contractual  obli- 
gations, namely,  that  none  may  set  up  his  own 
wrong  as  a  defence.  Germany  says  in  effect: 
'  Serbia,  a  non-signatory,  is  a  belligerent,  hence  I 
am  not  bound  by  that  treaty  in  the  present  war.' 
In  other  words  it  would  be  in  any  case,  and  was 
in  this  case,  only  necessary  for  Germany  to  study 
the  situation  and  pick  out  a  non-signatory  to  be 
attacked,  thereby  to  relieve  herself  of  the  obliga- 
tions of  that  contract.  Is  it  conceivable  that  such 
procedure  is  within  the  scope  and  intent  of  the 
treaty  V9 

Perhaps  so  and  perhaps  not;  but,  with  all  the 
respect  that  is  due  to  Mr.  Leon's  candor  and  pene- 
tration, let  us  ask  what  that  question  has  to  do 
with  the  "bounden  duty"  of  the  United  States  to 
enter  a  European  struggle  to  prevent  or  punish 
the  invasion  of  territory  neutralized  not  by  a  con- 
vention of  The  Hague  but  by  special  treaties  to 
which  we  are  not  a  party?  The  important  distinc- 
tion between  neutral  territory,  in  the  sense  of  the 
convention  of  The  Hague,  suspended  as  to  Bel- 
gium by  the  belligerency  of  Serbia,  and  territory 
neutralized,  and  in  the  case  of  Belgium  guaranteed 
by  the  Prussian  treaty,  which  Germany  violated, 
has  not  been  more  clearly  pointed  out  than  by  the 
editor  of  the  North  American  Review  in  the  May 
number : 

"The  neutrality  of  neutralized  States  is  a  mat- 


19 

ter  of  conventional  agreement  between  Powers 
who  are  more  or  less  interested  in  preventing  the 
State  from  being  absorbed  politically  by  any 
Power,  or  from  becoming  a  base  of  military  oper- 
ations, or  from  otherwise  assisting  neighboring 
rival  States.  The  agreement  imposes  a  condition 
of  permanent  neutrality.  It  is,  in  fact,  a  guaran- 
tee, not  only  by  the  neutralized  State  that  it  will 
not  engage  in  aggressive  warfare,  but  also  by  the 
other  parties  to  the  treaty  that  it  shall  not  be  at- 
tacked by  any  of  them. ' ' 

The  United  States,  of  course,  neither  by  any 
special  treaty  nor  by  any  convention  of  The 
Hague  is  a  party  to  the  neutralization  of  Belgium 
or  a  guarantor  of  her  neutrality.  The  writer  in 
the  North  American  Review  continues : 

"It  would  manifestly  be  improper  and  presump- 
tuous for  this  Government  to  complain  of  the 
violations  of  such  a  treaty  of  neutralization  to 
which  it  was  not  a  party  in  any  sense.  *  *  *  It 
is  not  necessary  to  examine  into  the  question  as 
to  whether  these  treaties  [of  The  Hague]  were  in 
force  by  virtue  of  all  the  belligerents  being  par- 
ties, for  the  reason  that,  quite  contrary  to  Mr. 
Roosevelt's  definite  assertion,  no  Hague  conven- 
tions were  violated  by  the  German  invasion  of 
Belgium. 

"It  is  admitted  that  if  Germany  before  invad- 
ing the  territory  of  Belgium  had  declared  war 
upon  that  country,  the  latter  would  have  become 
impressed  with  the  character  of  a  belligerent,  to 
whom  the  provisions  of  Article  1  of  Convention 
V.  and  Article  1  of  Convention  XIII.,  relative  to 
the  inviolability  of  neutral  territory,  would  not  be 
applicable;  and  that,  having  exercised  this  sove- 
reign right  Germany  could  not  be  charged  with 
violating  neutral  territory  in  contravention  of  the 
terms  of  the  Hague  convention;  but  the  fact  that 
this  is  what  happened  is  commonly  ignored. 
Nevertheless,  the  published  diplomatic  corre- 
spondence shows  that  Germany  did  declare  war 


20 


by  ultimatum  and  that  a  state  of  war  actually 
existed  between  Germany  and  Belgium  before 
German  forces  penetrated  into  the  territory  of 
the  latter  country." 

This  state  of  war  was  brought  about  between 
Germany  and  Belgium  in  precisely  the  manner 
prescribed  by  Article  I.  of  Hague  Convention 
No.  III.  of  1907.  The  German  Government  pre- 
sented to  Belgium  a  note  proposing  that  German 
troops  have  free  passage  through  Belgian  terri- 
tory, and  threatening,  in  case  of  refusal,  to  treat 
Belgium  as  an  enemy.  Belgium  refused,  with  full 
knowledge  that  the  consequence  would  be  war  with 
Germany.  Thereby  she  lost  her  neutral  character 
— in  the  sense  of  the  conventions  of  The  Hague — 
and  by  operation  of  the  ultimatum  became  a  bel- 
ligerent. After  this  status  in  the  relations  of  the 
two  countries  was  reached  a  state  of  war  existed 
and  German  forces  began  the  invasion  of  Belgium. 
That  Germany  was  violating  Prussia's  agreement 
neutralizing  Belgium  is  another  matter,  with 
which  we  have  nothing  to  do. 

We  commend  this  acute  and  conclusive  reason- 
ing not  only  to  Mr.  Leon  but  to  all  who  have  been 
influenced  by  Colonel  Koosevelt's  nebulous  accu- 
sations. 

Moreover,  we  call  the  attention  of  such  investi- 
gators to  the  main  fact,  underlying  every  other 
consideration  of  national  duty,  that  when  this 
Government  began  to  associate  itself  with  the 
European  signatories  and  ratifiers  of  the  several 
conventions  of  The  Hague  we  did  so  with  the  ex- 
press reservation  and  notification  to  all  concerned 
that  "  nothing  contained  in  this  convention  shall 
be  so  construed  as  to  require  the  United  States 
to  depart  from  its  traditional  policy  of  not  intrud- 
ing upon,  interfering  with  or  entangling  itself  in 
the  political  questions  of  policy  or  internal  ad- 
ministration of  any  foreign  State." 

And  President  Wilson  has  omitted  in  the  case 
of  Belgium  no  action  required  of  our  Government 
by  any  engagement  undertaken  at  The  Hague. 


21 

REPRINTED  FROM  TEE  NEW  YORK  SUN 
OF  SEPTEMBER  2, 1915. 


The  Monroe  Doctrine  Reservation, 

(Editorial) 

We  cannot  permit  Mr.  Maurice  Leon,  with  all 
his  candor  and  intelligence,  to  take  out  of  Colonel 
Eoosevelt's  mouth  the  defence  and  explication  of 
the  Colonel's  repeated  statement  about  the 
"bounden  duty"  of  this  Government  with  regard 
to  the  violation  of  Belgium's  neutrality. 

Accordingly,  we  confine  ourselves  to  exhibiting 
a  single  extract  from  a  second  communication 
which  we  received  by  telegraph  on  Monday  from 
Mr.  Leon  on  this  subject.  His  remarks  refer  to 
what  The  Sun  has  said  about  the  American  reser- 
vation with  regard  to  the  Monroe  Doctrine: 

"A  declaration  made  at  The  Hague  in  behalf  of 
the  United  States  is  cited  as  putting  the  world  on 
notice  that  this  country  adhered  to  its  traditional 
policy  of  non-entanglement  and  non-intrusion. 

"It  is  sufficient  to  say  in  reply  that  that  decla- 
ration, made  after  American  intervention  in 
China  during  the  Boxer  trouble,  can  hardly  have 
been  understood  by  any  one  to  mean  that  the 
United  States  should  be  expected  to  omit  every 
word  or  act  necessary  thereafter  to  secure  com- 
pliance with  the  rules  of  international  decency 
codified  at  The  Hague;  for  otherwise,  was  not 
adherence  by  the  United  States  to  the  convention 
an  empty  formality,  mere  lip  service  intended  as 
a  forerunner  of  the  policy  of  emitting  words  and 
omitting  acts  in  everything  that  pertains  to  inter- 
national affairs  inaugurated  under  the  Bryan 
regime? — a  notion  utterly  inconceivable  in  1907, 
as  I  call  upon  The  Sun  to  bear  witness. ' ' 

No,  Mr.  Leon,  it  is  not  sufficient  to  say  that  in 
reply. 

It  cannot  be  that  Mr.  Leon  really  means  that 


22 

the  Monroe  Doctrine  declaration  or  reservation 
was  made  after  American  intervention  in  China 
at  the  time  of  the  Boxer  troubles.  His  knowledge 
of  chronology  is  too  accurate  to  permit  that  sup- 
position. He  must  be  aware  that  our  march  to 
Pekin  occurred  in  August,  1900,  and  that  the 
aforesaid  declaration,  limiting  our  responsibility 
and  "bounden  duties"  under  the  conventions  of 
The  Hague,  was  first  spread  on  the  minutes  of 
the  conference  more  than  a  year  earlier,  on  July 
25,  1899. 

Perhaps  what  Mr.  Leon  does  intend  to  say  is 
that  after  our  march  to  Pekin  nobody  can  suppose 
that  the  Monroe  Doctrine  declaration  means  what 
it  declares.  We  cannot  agree  with  him.  It  was 
reiterated  with  deliberate  intention  and  undi- 
minished force  long  after  the  march  to  Pekin, 
namely,  in  October  of  1907,  when  the  American 
delegates  signed  the  first  of  the  second  series  of 
conventions  of  The  Hague  and  by  the  Senate  of 
the  United  States  on  April  2,  1908,  in  ratifying 
that  convention. 

The  reservation  is  as  much  a  part  of  our  treaty 
engagements  as  any  section  of  any  article  of  any 
convention  of  The  Hague. 

Mr.  Maurice  Leon  ought  to  be  told  these  facts 
if  they  have  temporarily  escaped  his  memory.  He 
ought  to  know  that  the  Monroe  Doctrine  reserva- 
tion was  a  general  reservation,  expressly  intended 
to  disclaim  responsibility  for  and  avoid  entangle- 
ment in  just  such  questions  of  foreign  policy  as 
the  guarantee  of  Belgian  neutrality  by  several 
European  Powers. 

Our  march  to  Pekin  to  rescue  our  embassy  and 
assert  our  treaty  rights  in  China  had  no  more  to 
do  with  our  "bounden  duty"  under  the  conven- 
tions of  The  Hague  than  the  military  operations 
of  Julius  Caesar  against  Vercingetorix  in  52  B.  C. 

But,  as  we  have  already  remarked,  The  Sun  can- 
not allow  even  Mr.  Maurice  Leon  to  take  out  of 
the  Colonel 's  mouth  the  words  for  which  the 
country  is  waiting. 


23 

REPRINTED  FROM  THE  NEW  YORK  SUN 
OF  SEPTEMBER  8, 1915. 


Mr.  Maurice  Leon's  last  word  for  the  Colonel. 

To  the  Editor  of  The  Sun — Sir:  No  one  con- 
tends that  the  United  States  is  a  guarantor  of  the 
neutralization  of  Belgium,  whether  by  the  treaty 
bearing  the  signature  of  a  King  of  Prussia  since 
dishonored  by  his  heirs  or  by  any  other  treaty; 
nor  that  the  United  States  ought  to  depart  from 
the  Monroe  Doctrine. 

I  have  argued  that  the  Fifth  convention  of  The 
Hague  was  binding  on  Germany  notwithstanding 
the  belligerence  of  Serbia  and  Belgium,  and  am 
glad  to  note  that  The  Sun  does  not  further  uphold 
what  the  editor  of  the  North  American  Review, 
misled  by  a  notion  of  literalistic  attorneyship, 
said  in  support  of  the  right  of  a  contractant  to  re- 
lease himself  by  his  own  wrong  from  an  obligation 
which  but  for  that  wrong  would  admittedly  be 
binding  on  him. 

Practically  the  whole  civilized  world  subscribed 
at  The  Hague  to  the  principle,  there  clearly  for- 
mulated, that  the  territory  of  a  neutral  Power  is 
inviolable  and  may  not  be  traversed  by  armed 
forces  and  convoys. 

Colonel  Roosevelt  has  asserted  that  it  was  the 
"bounden  duty"  of  the  United  States  to  uphold 
that  principle  in  the  face  of  a  flagrant  infringe- 
ment so  far  reaching  as  to  threaten  an  era  of 
worldwide  international  anarchy. 

The  Sun's  position  in  the  last  analysis  is  that 
the  United  States  is  warranted  in  relying  upon 
a  thrice  recorded  declaration  of  adherence  to 
traditions  of  American  aloofness  as  justification 
for  failure  to  oppose  that  infringement. 

There  is  much  to  be  said  in  support  of  either 
proposition,  but  I  wish  to  be  recorded  as  still 
siding  with  the  Colonel,  if  The  Sun  cares  to  do 
the  recording. 

Westport,  September  3.  Maurice  Leon. 


24 

A    WEAPON    AGAINST    GERMAN 
POLITICAL  PLOTS. 

REPRINTED  FROM  THE  BROOKLYN  DAILY 
EAGLE  OF  SEPTEMBER  5,  1915. 

ARE    FRIENDS    OF    PEACE    REAL 

PEACE    MAKERS? 

The  Pro-German  Organization  Now  in  Session  in 

Chicago  and  the  Part  Some  of  Its  Members 

Took  in   Attempting  to   Discredit   the 

President  of  the  United  States  and 

Spread  the  Teutonic  Propaganda 

Against    the    Welfare    of 

This  Country. 


By  Frederick  Boyd  Stevenson. 


Maurice  Leon  of  60  Wall  street  has  formulated 
for  The  Sunday  Eagle,  in  the  form  of  a  tentative 
brief,  a  list  of  the  issues  by  which  may  be  deter- 
mined the  extent  of  the  liability  of  German  propa- 
gandists in  this  country  to  punishment  under  the 
Federal  law.  Mr.  Leon  is  a  lawyer  of  long  ex- 
perience, whose  specialty  is  the  branches  of  inter- 
national law  and  the  conflict  of  laws.  He  cites  a 
provision  of  the  Federal  Statutes  contained  in 
section  5  of  the  act  of  March  4,  1909,  which  reads 
as  follows : 

u Section  5.  (Criminal  correspondence  with 
foreign  governments.)  Every  citizen  of  the 
United  States,  whether  actual  resident  or  abiding 
within  the  same,  or  in  any  place  subject  to  the 
jurisdiction  thereof,  or  in  any  foreign  country 
who  without  the  permission  or  authority  of  the 
Government,  directly  or  indirectly,  commences  or 
carries  on  any  verbal  or  written  correspondence 
or  intercourse  with  any  foreign  government  or 
any  officer  or  agent  thereof,  with  an  intent  to  in- 


25 

fluence  the  measures  or  conduct  of  any  foreign 
government  or  any  officer  or  agent  thereof,  in  re- 
lation to  any  disputes  or  controversies  with  the 
United  States,  or  to  defeat  the  measures  of  the 
Government  of  the  United  States;  and  every 
person,  being  a  citizen  of  or  resident  within  the 
United  States  or  in  any  place  subject  to  the  juris- 
diction thereof  and  not  duly  authorized  who  coun- 
sels, advises,  or  assists  in  any  such  correspond- 
ence with  such  intent  shall  be  fined  not  more  than 
$5,000  and  imprisoned  not  more  than  three  years; 
but  nothing  in  this  section  shall  be  construed  to 
abridge  the  right  of  a  citizen  to  apply  himself  or 
his  agent  to  any  foreign  government  or  the  agents 
thereof  for  redress  of  any  injury  which  he  may 
have  sustained  from  such  government  or  any  of 
its  agents  or  subjects.    (35  Stat.  L.  1088.) 

Mr.  Leon  says:  "This  statute  enables  the 
Federal  authorities  to  visit  punishment  upon 
every  citizen  of  the  United  States  who  directly  or 
indirectly  commences  or  carries  on  any  verbal  or 
written  correspondence  or  intercourse  with  any 
foreign  government  or  any  agent  thereof  with  an 
intent  to  defeat  the  measures  of  the  government 
of  the  United  States.  It  also  applies  to  every 
person  residing  within  the  United  States,  even 
though  of  alien  nationality  who  '  counsels,  <ad- 
vises,  or  assists  in  any  such  correspondence  with 
such  intent. ' 

"These  provisions,  given  force  in  their  letter 
and  spirit,  should  enable  the  American  govern- 
ment effectually  to  break  up  the  widespread  Ger- 
man conspiracy  against  the  United  States,  di- 
rected and  financed  by  persons  of  alien  nation- 
ality, and  participated  in  by  persons  owing  allegi- 
ance to  the  United  States. 

"It  would  be  a  high  misdemeanor,  namely,  an 
offense  for  which  impeachment  is  provided  by  the 
Constitution,  for  the  President  to  suspend  the 
operation  of  that  statute,  when  its  enforcement  is 


26 


vital  to  the  security  of  the  nation.  The  law  grants 
the  President,  through  the  machinery  of  the  De- 
partment of  Justice  the  power,  and  therefore,  im- 
poses upon  him  the  duty  to  act.  He  has  no  choice 
in  the  matter.  He  is  sworn  to  enforce  the  laws  of 
the  United  States. 

"Nor  does  the  Department  of  Justice  require 
any  particular  instructions  from  the  President  in 
order  to  enforce  the  law.  It  is  sufficient  that  evi- 
dence is  available  indicating  with  sufficient  clear- 
ness that  a  number  of  our  citizens  and  certain 
aliens  residing  in  the  United  States  have  com- 
bined to  uphold  a  foreign  government  in  relation 
to  its  disputes  and  controversies  with  the  United 
States  to  make  it  the  imperative  duty  of  the  At- 
torney General  of  the  United  States  and  of  the 
various  United  States  Attorneys  to  take  the  steps 
provided  for  by  law  in  the  premises. 

"A  vast  network  of  political  and  military  es- 
pionage has  been  spread  over  the  United  States, 
the  true  ultimate  aim  of  which  is  to  undermine 
the  power  of  the  United  States.  This  system 
should  not  have  been  allowed  to  develop.  Now 
it  must  be  broken  up.  Delay  is  bound  to  make  the 
task  harder.  Disloyalty  is  being  stimulated  by 
contempt  for  a  government  which  seemingly 
knows  not  how  to  defend  itself  at  home  against 
alien  machinations  intended  to  break  down  its  vi- 
tality. 

"Germany,  and  the  gang  she  has  set  lose  in 
this  country,  will  not  believe  that  it  is  dangerous 
to  conspire  against  the  United  States  unless  and 
until  the  gang  is  jailed.' ' 

Tests  to  Find  How  the  Law  Has  Been  Violated. 

"In  order  to  determine  against  what  persons 
this  statute  is  applicable  it  is  necessary  to  apply 
the  following  tests, ' '  said  Mr.  Leon :  First,  as  to 
the  citizens  of  the  United  States.  I  should  seek 
to  determine  these  issues : 


27 

"(a)  Have  citizens  of  the  United  States  com- 
menced or  carried  on  any  verbal  or  written  cor- 
respondence or  intercourse,  directly  or  indirectly 
with  a  foreign  government  or  any  officer  or  agent 
thereof? 

"(b)  Have  they  done  so  without  the  permis- 
sion or  authority  of  the  Government  of  the  United 
States? 

"(c)  Have  they  done  so  with  an  intent  to  in- 
fluence the  measures  or  conduct  of  such  foreign 
government  or  of  any  officer  or  agent  thereof,  in 
relation  to  any  disputes  or  controversies  with  the 
United  States — for  example,  have  the  natural  and 
probable  consequences  of  their  acts,  which  the 
law  says  establishes  a  conclusive  presumption  of 
their  intent,  been  such  as  to  lead  the  foreign  gov- 
ernment or  its  agents  to  rely  upon  the  support  of 
such  American  citizens  being  expressed  in  its 
favor  and  in  opposition  to  the  American  Govern- 
ment in  such  disputes  and  controversies? 

"(d)     Are  Messrs.  (certain  prominent 

pro-German  propagandists,  native  and  hyphen- 
ated) citizens  of  the  United  States? 

"(e)  Are  Count  Bernstoff,  the  German  Am- 
bassador, Captain  Boy-Ed,  Naval  Attache  of  the 
German  Embassy,  Geheimrath  Heinrich  Albert, 
commercial  (and  financial)  attache  of  said  Em- 
bassy, agents  of  the  German  Government? 

"(f)  Did  a  dispute  or  controversy  arise  be- 
tween the  German  and  American  Governments  by 
reason  of  the  killing  of  American  non-combatants 
on  the  Lusitania? 

"(g)  Did  Messrs.  (the  same  pro-Ger- 
man propagandists  of  American  nationality)  and 
other  persons  have  verbal  or  written  correspond- 
ence or  intercourse,  directly  or  indirectly,  with 
Count  Bernstoff,  Captain  Boy-Ed,  Geheimrath 
Heinrich  Albert,  or  any  of  them,  or  any  other  pub- 
lic agent,  or  any  secret  agent  of  Germany  with  re- 
gard to  the  Lusitania  matter,  or  with  regard  to 


28 


the  adoption  of  an  arms  embargo  by  the  United 
States,  or  with  regard  to  the  right  of  American 
citizens  to  travel  on  merchant  ships  irrespective 
of  their  being  neutral  or  belligerent  ships? 

"(h)  Was  the  natural  and  probable  conse- 
quence of  such  direct  and  indirect,  verbal  or  writ- 
ten correspondence  or  intercourse  to  lead  the  Ger- 
man Government  to  rely  upon  the  support  of 

Messrs.    (the  names  of  the  prominent 

American  pro-German  propagandists  are  again 
repeated)  or  any  of  them,  in  one  or  another  of 
the  different  phases  of  the  disputes  or  controver- 
sies which  have  arisen  between  Germany  and  the 
United  States  !" 


The  Record  at  Washington  after 
Eighteen  Months  of  War 


ACTS  AND  OMISSIONS  DETRIMENTAL  TO 
PEACE  AND  INTERNATIONAL  JUSTICE 


(Hitherto  published  in  pamphlet  form  only) 


31 


ACTS  AND  OMISSIONS  DETRIMENTAL  TO 
PEACE  AND  INTERNATIONAL  JUSTICE. 

The  arch  enemy  of  peace  and  international  jus- 
tice is  the  German  Emperor  by  common  consent 
outside  his  dominions  and  those  of  his  vassals. 
Having  plunged  the  world  in  war  he  has  taken 
successively  every  initiative  against  human 
rights  of  which  there  is  a  record.  His  opponents 
are  known ;  they  have  their  friends  in  every  coun- 
try where  freedom  and  justice  are  prized.  But 
in  every  such  country  men  are  to  be  found,  some 
in  the  highest  places  in  the  government,  in 
business,  at  the  bar,  in  the  universities,  (also 
women  in  philanthropic  institutions  who  are 
agents  of  men  of  wealth)  all  with  fine  words  con- 
stantly flowing  from  their  lips  concerning  peace 
justice,  patriotism,  but  whose  actual  course  for 
one  reason  or  another  has  been  such  as  to  aid  the 
War  Lord  in  his  projects.  Some  of  these  men 
are  in  Greece,  others  in  Scandinavia,  but  the  fore- 
most of  them  is  right  here  in  the  United  States. 

(1)  Woodrow  Wilson  appointed  as  his  Secre- 
tary of  State  William  Jennings  Bryan  who  upon 
taking  office  on  March  4th,  1913  announced  that 
while  he  remained  in  the  State  Department  the 
United  States  would  not  declare  war  under  any 
circumstances,  thereby  giving  Germany  a  direct 
encouragement  to  launch  her  carefully  prepared 
war  to  which  this  pledge  of  non-intervention  by 
the  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States  was 
all  but  essential.  That  guarantee  has  been  duly 
kept  and  this  toward  a  power  whose  whole  policy 
is  to  obliterate  by  the  sword  not  alone  whole 
peoples  but  also  that  precious  inheritance  of 
humanity,  the  law  of  nations. 

(2)  When  the  threat  of  war  actually  arose  in 
July,  1914,  Great  Britain,  in  a  last  effort  to  avert 
the  conflagration,  proposed  a  four-power  media- 
tion to  adjust  the  differences  which  had  arisen  be- 
tween Eussia  and  Austria  over  the  latter's  de- 


32 

dared  resolve  to  wipe  out  the  independence  of 
Serbia.  When  Germany  objected  to  the  "form" 
of  this  solution  Great  Britain's  answer  was  "make 
it  any  form  you  like"  and  that  any  form  of  peace- 
ful solution  would  be  accepted.  In  this  Great 
Britain  was  upheld  by  France,  Russia  and  Italy, 
and  even  Austria  was  being  won  over.  If  ever 
there  was  a  time  for  the  United  States  to  come 
forward  as  the  "spokesman  of  humanity",  it  was 
then.  Four  agonizing  days  passed,  during  which 
American  diplomacy  remained  deaf,  dumb  and 
blind.  Thereupon  the  die  was  irrevocably  cast  by 
Germany  declaring  war  on  Russia  and  invading 
Belgium  and  France.  Not  until  it  was  too  late 
did  Woodrow  Wilson  decide  that  humanity  needed 
him  as  spokesman;  on  August  6th,  1914,  having 
first  proclaimed  the  neutrality  of  the  United 
States  as  between  Germany  the  aggressor  and 
Belgium  its  victim,  he  dispatched  to  the  European 
powers  a  note  offering  his  good  offices  to  prevent 
a  conflict  which  was  already  under  way ; — the  first 
of  his  memorable  series  of  futile  notes! 

(3)  During  those  four  agonizing  days  when  an 
offer  of  America's  good  offices  would  in  all  prob- 
ability have  turned  the  scales  in  favor  of  peace, 
holding  as  it  would  have  done  before  the  German 
Emperor  and  his  general  staff  the  prospect  of  a 
United  World  Democracy  ready  to  resist  the  self- 
anointed  War  Lord  in  his  purpose  to  crush  out 
freedom  first  from  Europe,  then  from  the  world, 
what  was  Woodrow  Wilson  doing?  Under 
the  guidance  of  William  G.  McAdoo,  he  was 
bending  all  his  energies  towards  assuring 
representation  for  the  German  Financial  Gen- 
eral Staff  on  the  Federal  Reserve  Board.  A 
superlatively  adequate  "expert"  representation 
which  incidentally  constitutes  an  excellent  prece- 
dent for  the  giving  of  like  representation  to  the 
General  Staff  presided  over  first  by  Von  Tirpitz 
and    now    bv   Von    TToltzendorff    on    the    U.    S. 


33 

Naval  Board  of  Strategy  and  to  the  General 
Staff  presided  over  first  by  Von  Moltke  and 
now  by  von  Falkenhayn,  on  the  U.  S.  Army  Board 
of  Strategy!  This  precedent  was  finally  estab- 
lished by  and  with  the  unwilling  consent  of  a  be- 
wildered Senate  on  July  31st,  1914  a  few  hours 
before  Germany's  declaration  of  war  against 
Russia,  the  prospect  of  a  European  war  being 
urged  in  favor  of  the  appointment  when  that  pros- 
pect should  have  been  urged  as  sufficient  reason 
for  withdrawing  it. 

(4)  It  followed  as  night  follows  day  that  the 
Treasury  Department  would  prove  as  deaf,  dumb 
and  blind  before  the  prospect  of  violations  of 
American  neutrality  as  the  State  Department 
had  been  before  the  prospect  of  war.  Mr.  Mc- 
Adoo  allowed  the  Kronprinz  Wilhelm  to  sail  on 
the  night  of  August  3rd, — three  days  after  Ger- 
many's declaration  of  war  against  Russia  and  six 
hours  after  that  against  France  had  been  an- 
nounced in  New  York  and  Washington, — the 
ship's  regular  "peace"  crew  with  which  she  ar- 
rived replaced  by  a  special  "war"  crew  of  German 
naval  reserves  organized  on  American  territory ; 
and  though  the  destination  on  her  clearance  papers 
was  Bremen,  she  had  enough  coal  on  board  to  go 
to  China,  as  also  certain  "long  boxes"  placed  on 
deck  at  the  last  moment  while  the  reporters  were 
being  "shoo'ed"  off  the  dock.  A  few  days  later 
she  transferred  part  of  her  coal  to  the  Cruiser 
Karlsruhe  and  proceded  on  a  commerce-raiding 
career  which  presents  a  striking  parallel  to  that 
of  the  "Alabama";  finally,  she  returned  to  the 
United  States  without  having  touched  at  a  Ger- 
man port;  instead  of  libelling  her  and  placing  her 
officers  and  crew  under  arrest  for  conspiracy 
against  the  United  States,  she  was  "interned"; 
since  that  time  a  number  of  her  officers  and  crew 
have  broken  their  parole,  nor  would  it  be  a  violent 
presumption  that  they  have  since  engaged  in  fur- 


34 

ther  conspiracies  against  the  United  States,  it 
having  been  proved  to  them  that  they  could  do  so 
with  safety.  Have  not  some  of  them  been  ar- 
rested while  employed  in  munitions  plants! 

Another  and  far-reaching  conspiracy  against 
the  United  States  which  Germany  financed  through 
Boy-Ed  and  the  Hamburg  Line  was  carried  out 
without  hindrance  by  the  treasury  authorities;  it 
resulted  in  aid  being  given  to  commerce  raiding  in 
the  Atlantic  while  the  German  squadron  operating 
in  the  Pacific  was  helped  to  destroy  the  British 
warships  commended  by  Admiral  Craddock;  no- 
thing was  done  in  the  matter  until  overwhelming 
proof  of  the  conspiracy  was  gathered  and  fur- 
nished to  the  Department  of  Justice  by  agencies 
other  than  the  Treasury  Department,  which  re- 
mained quiescent  throughout. 

(5)  The  trial  of  the  Hamburg  Line  officials  has 
revealed  that  Boy-Ed  received  for  these  purposes 
in  August  and  September,  1914,  Fifteen  hundred 
thousand  Dollars  remitted  through  the  Hamburg 
Line  and  Seven  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  Dol- 
lars remitted  through  one  Kulenkampf.  It  is  of 
record  that  during  that  very  period  McAdoo  was 
advocating  before  Committees  of  Congress  the 
purchase  of  the  German  ships  held  in  the  American 
harbors,  giving  false  assurances — I  mean  assur- 
ances which  he  knew  to  be  false — against  diplo- 
matic complications  in  the  event  of  their  purchase 
as  the  nucleus  of  a  government-owned  (hyphen- 
ated) American  merchant  marine.  It  is  also 
of  record  k  that  a  determined  attempt  was  made 
coincidently  with  McAdoo's  entry  in  the  arena  as 
promoter  of  a  government-owned  merchant  mar- 
ine and  before  the  remittances  from  Germany  ag- 
gregating $2,250,000  reached  Boy-Ed,  in  August 
and  September,  1914,  to  create  an  American  in- 
terest in  favor  of  having  these  ships  purchased  by 
the  American  government  while  at  the  same  time 
providing  Boy-Ed  with  the  funds  which  he  need- 


35 

ed,  which  would  render  unnecessary  the  remit- 
tances from  Germany  which,  the  plan  failing,  were 
necessarily,  subsequently  made.  The  plan  con- 
templated a  loan  on  the  German  ships  in  American 
harbors  by  American  lenders  who  were  to  receive 
not  only  a  handsome  return  in  the  shape  of  liberal 
interest  and  a  substantial  bankers'  commission, 
but,  and  that  is  the  milk  in  the  particular  cocoa- 
nut,  a  large  extra  commission  out  of  the  purchase 
price  of  any  ship  sold;  nor  was  this  to  be  compen- 
sation for  a  reduced  security  through  release  of 
the  ship  from  the  lien,  for  it  was  specially  stipu- 
lated that  other  ships  of  like  value  were  to  replace 
any  ships  withdrawn  through  sale.  The  evidence 
concerning  this  extraordinary  feature  of  the 
proposition  comes  from  three  independent,  orig- 
inal sources  and  its  accurracy  is  unimpeachable. 
These  negotiations,  which  failed  because  the 
Americans  approached  would  not  participate, 
were  conducted  in  behalf  of  the  Hamburg  Line — 
with  which  the  family  of  the  member  of  the 
German  Financial  General  Staff  who  is  McAdoo's 
Mentor  is  intimately  connected  as  is  the  Kaiser, — 
through  William  G.  Sickel,  assisted  by  Messrs. 
Charles  S.  Haight  and  Carl  Lincoln  Schurz.  At 
the  Congressional  inquiry  no  serious  effort  was 
made  to  get  at  the  real  significance  of  this  attempt. 
Theodore  Roosevelt  spoke  the  absolute  truth  in 
relation  to  the  matter. 

(6)  On  May  1st,  1915  the  German  government, 
usurping  on  American  territory  the  functions 
vested  in  the  government  of  the  United  States  and 
in  contempt  of  the  most  elementary  rule  of  inter- 
national usage  sought  to  exercise  jurisdiction 
over  the  people  of  the  United  States  by  laying 
down  rules  governing  them  in  their  selection  of 
ships  and  sea  routes  when  travelling  over  an  ocean 
which  is  as  much  America's  as  Germany's.  This 
proclamation  of  a  foreign  government  threatened 
the  American  people  with  punishment  for  a  vio- 


36 

lation  of  those  rules.  The  agent  through  whom 
the  usurping  was  done  and  who  paid  the  expense 
of  promulgation  of  the  German  decree  in  Amer- 
ica was  still  in  Washington  when  the  threat  of 
punishment  in  the  decree  was  carried  out,  a  week 
later.  He  is  still  there.  A  few  days  after  the  pun- 
ishment was  inflicted,  he  was  received  with  honor 
at  the  "White  House.  Lately  he  was  the  guest  of 
honor  at  a  banquet  given  in  the  White  House,  al- 
most coincidently  with  the  birthday  of  his  imperial 
master,  the  Chief  Murderer,  which  called  forth 
congratulations  from  that  same  White  House.  And 
the  German  decree  promulgated  in  the  United 
States  on  May  first  1915  is  still  in  force  in  this 
country  today,  January  31st,  1916. 

(7)  Not  only  is  that  decree  in  force,  but  it  has 
been  practically  countersigned  by  Woodrow  Wil- 
son within  the  last  few  days;  acting  through  his 
secretary  Lansing  he  has  declared  his  readiness 
to  connive  at  the  perpetual  enforcement  of  that 
decree  through  the  adoption  of  the  very  pretext 
which  the  Chief  Murderer  and  his  envoy  set  up 
for  the  destruction  of  the  Lusitania  and  Arabic; 
although  both  unarmed,  they  were  classed  by 
Germany  as  '  f  cruisers '  \  The  envoy  bolstered  up 
the  pretext  by  affidavits  filed  with  the  State  De- 
partment. When  their  falsity  was  exposed  there 
remained  the  pretext  that  the  Lusitania  carried 
some  ammunition  in  her  freight,  and  that  the  Ar- 
abic was  to  bring  some  on  her  return  voyage.  Not- 
ing the  character  of  "  strict  accountability ' '  and 
the  value  of  the  engagement  "not  to  omit  any 
word  or  act"  necessary  to  secure  redress  of  the 
most  grievous  wrongs  and  after  proof  of  the  shell- 
ing of  the  Ancona's  passengers  in  their  lifeboats, 
Great  Britain  and  Italy  allowed  their  merchant 
vessels  to  mount  guns  for  such  defense  as  was 
possible  against  the  unquestionable  pirates  whose 
like  have  not  been  met  since  those  of  Algiers  were 
subdued  by  the  United  States.    And  now  Wood- 


37 

row  Wilson,  betraying  his  own  previous  declara- 
tions in  support  of  the  rules  of  international  law 
which  all  nations  recognized  prior  to  August,  1914 
and  which  all  except  those  responsible  for  the 
present  condition  of  Belgium,  Poland,  Serbia  and 
Armenia  still  recognize,  has  calmly  proceeded  to 
invite  the  league  for  the  upholding  of  the  law  of 
nations  to  bargain  away  its  rights  in  this  respect 
under  that  law  in  return  for  a  promise  to  respect 
other  of  its  rights  thereunder  which  promise  is  to 
proceed  from  the  league  for  the  obliteration  of 
the  law  of  nations.  As  an  added  inducement  he 
announces  that  failure  to  accept  such  a  bargain 
will  result  in  the  government  of  the  United  States 
after  eighteen  months  of  war,  and  after  nearly  a 
year  of  submarine  murders,  throwing  overboard 
the  law  which  it  has  upheld  throughout  its  his- 
tory concerning  the  lawfulness  of  arming  mer- 
chant vessels  for  defensive  purposes. 

Assuming  the  requirements  thus  laid  down 
were  submitted  to,  such  surrender  would  prove 
futile  except  as  an  encouragement  to  the  submar- 
ines to  do  their  worst,  the  pretext  which  would 
be  advanced  in  the  future  being  the  old  Lusitania 
one  that  ammunition  on  board  a  vessel  makes  her 
ipso  facto  a  "  warship ".  And  the  net  result 
would  be  that  still  more  innocent  lives  would  be 
sacrificed  to  the  War  Lord,  while  Mr.  Wilson 
stood  by  uttering  "  strong  words "  but  not  other- 
wise interfering.  The  next  step  would  doubtless 
be  the  declaration  of  an  arms  embargo  until  the 
Allies  agreed  that  merchant  vessels,  deprived  of 
defense,  should  carry  no  " contraband' '  or  no 
passengers. 

(8)  The  "M.  P."  memorandum  found  in  the 
portfolio  of  Bernstorff's  assistant  Albert  reveals 
a  conversation  held  with  the  President  of  the 
United  States  last  summer  in  which  the  latter  said 
that  if  Germany  made  a  partial  disavowal  of  the 
Lusitania,  amounting  to  a  "diplomatic  victory' ' 
for  Woodrow  Wilson,  he  would  deal  very  ener- 


38 

geutaxiy  with  Great  Britain  in  regard  to  the  Al- 
lien biuekade.  Woodrow  Wilson  knows  who  M.  P. 
is,  so  uo  others,  and  the  fact  that  no  one  with  those 
initials  was  appointed  Counsellor  to  the  State  De- 
partment shows  that  in  Woodrow  Wilson's  judg- 
ment a  would-be  diplomat  should  not  be  found 
out,  especially  when  it  involves  the  finding  out  of 
his  chief.  But  for  the  existence  of  a  letter  writ- 
ten in  February,  1913,  confiding  to  him  the  fate 
of  a  second  term,  it  would  have  gone  hard  with 
M.  P. 

(9)  When  the  Persia  was  sunk  and  an  Ameri- 
can consular  envoy  died  as  also  an  American  di- 
vine, and  a  number  of  women  and  children,  the 
"Turkish  submarine"  solution  was  launched 
through  the  State  Department.  When  that  solu- 
tion was  rejected  by  a  unanimous  press,  another 
means  was  found  to  throw  the  Persia  case  over- 
board, namely:  through  the  bargain  of  the  right 
to  arm  merchant  vessels  for  defense  against  a 
" disavowal' '  of  the  Lusitania  which  however  one 
can  be  sure  will  not  involve  the  withdrawal  of  the 
Prussian  order  "pour  le  Merite"  bestowed  on  the 
commander  of  the  submarine  who  made  Bern- 
storfPs  warning  good.  (The  Berlin  Lokalanzei- 
ger  for  May  9,  1915,  contained  the  following  char- 
acteristic comment:  "We  do  not  want  any  love 
among  the  Americans,  but  we  do  want  respect, 
and  the  case  of  the  Lusitania  will  win  it  for  us 
better  than  a  hundred  victories  on  land.") 
Under  that  bargain  Woodrow  Wilson  has 
"delivered  the  goods".  He  has  furnished 
Germany  with  an  estoppel  to  be  set  up 
against  any  American  claims  for  the  destruction 
of  the  Persia  without  warning,  upon  a  theory 
founded  upon  the  alleged  vulnerability  of  present 
day  submarines,  which  are  no  more  vulnerable 
than  and  are  fully  as  efficient  as  surface  warships 
as  were  the  surface  torpedo  boats  of  the  Spanish- 
American  war.     In   a   dav   when   the   undersea 


39 

cruiser  is  no  longer  a  dream  but  a  reality,  the  law 
of  nations  is  to  be  sacrificed  because  of  a  special 
vulnerability  which  is  already  non-existent,  so  as 
to  make  commerce  destroying  a  safer  occupation 
than  it  has  ever  been.  All  this  in  the  name  of  hu- 
manity. 

(10)  In  his  most  recent  message  to  Congress 
the  President  of  the  United  States  spoke  with 
scorn  of  the  hyphenated  citizen,  the  man  who  hav- 
ing acquired  the  American  franchise  organizes 
with  others  like  him  political  associations  whose 
object  is  pre-eminently  to  further  the  policies  of 
foreign  powers  by  subjecting  candidates  for  office 
to  a  species  of  blackmail  in  the  interest  of  such 
powers  which  in  this  way  undertake  to  govern  the 
policy  of  this  country  in  matters  of  purely  Ameri- 
can concern — preparedness  for  example.  But  the 
aforesaid  hyphenated  element  is  led  by  agents 
of  foreign  governments  who  having  taken  Wood- 
row  Wilson's  measure  long  ago  have  defied  him 
and  on  this  occasion  they  did  not  mince  their 
words.  So  he  meekly  sends  his  "warmest  greet- 
ings "  to  a  meeting  not  of  "Americans"  of  what- 
soever origin  but  of  "  Hungarian- Americans ' '  ex- 
clusively, greetings  which  effect  a  withdrawal  of 
the  strong  words  of  the  presidential  message, 
since  they  are  a  recognition  of  the  right  of  citi- 
zens to  organize  politically  on  the  basis  of  an  alle- 
giance which  they  expressly  renounced  on  acquir- 
ing American  citizenship.  At  that  meeting  reso- 
lutons  were  adopted  which  withheld  unqualified 
approval  of  American  preparedness  against  for- 
eign agression. 

All  this  is  in  reality  in  order  that  the  alien  trus- 
tee of  the  German  voting  trust  may  in  due  course 
cast  the  German  vote  in  one  ballot  for  Woodrow 
Wilson  for  president  of  the  United  States.  One- 
tenth  of  all  this  would  have  sufficed  to  relegate 
any  one  of  his  predecessors  to  ignominious  ob- 
livion before  the  expiration  of  his  term  of  office 


40 

through  the  machinery  which  the  Federal  Con- 
stitution provides  to  be  used  in  such  national 
emergencies. 

On  one  occasion  a  well  known  man  was  asked 
in  regard  to  some  step  taken  by  him,  "  Who  do  you 
represent f"  His  reply  was:  "Myself".  That 
reply  is  mine  now,  should  the  question  be  asked 
of  me. 

I  cast  my  first  vote  as  an  American  citizen 
fifteen  years  ago  a  few  months  after  reaching  my 
majority,  having  previously  lived  here  six  years. 
I  have  lived  here  ever  since,  discharging  my 
duties  as  a  citizen  to  the  best  of  my  ability.  Until 
this  war  showed  the  true  character  of  the  German 
vote  and  of  the  candidacies  put  forward  to  gain 
its  support,  it  would  not  have  occurred  to  me  to 
withhold  my  vote  from  a  candidate  on  the  ground 
that  he  was  of  a  German  extraction  or  had  the  sup- 
port of  persons  of  German  extraction.  In  fact  I 
have  repeatedly  voted  for  such  candidates  and 
have  in  other  ways  given  my  support  to  elect  them. 
In  deciding  to  oppose  Woodrow  Wilson  in  1912  I 
was  actuated  largely  by  apprehension  of  what 
Bryan  might  do  as  the  indispensable  prop  of  a 
democratic  administration.  For  avoiding  that 
pitfall  I  am  devoutly  grateful.  It  did  not  occur 
to  me  however  that  this  country  held  a  democrat 
capable  of  making  Bryan  appear  almost  respect- 
able in  comparison,  because  the  latter  at  least  is 
not  the  mere  opportunist  Woodrow  Wilson  has 
proved  himself  to  be;  because  he  is  at  least  con- 
sistent and  held  on  to  his  free  silver  doctrines 
when  knowing  that  by  doing  so  he  was  hindering 
the  prospects  of  his  second  presidential  candidacy; 
while  Woodrow  Wilson  pledges  away  the  honor 
of  his  country — for  which  he  is  at  this  very 
moment  declaiming  resounding  sentences — in 
order  to  gain  a  second  term  of  office.  In  casting 
my  next  ballot  I  shall  be  sensible  of  voting  not  only 
for  myself  but  for  my  children  who  are  descended 


41 


an  their  mother's  side  from  Americans  who  were 
not  too  proud  to  fight,  but  took  up  arms  and  fought 
for  the  freedom  of  the  land  instead  of  contenting 
themselves  with  uttering  brave  words  rendered 
meaningless  by  abundant  proof  that  there  is  noth- 
ing back  of  them.  That  ballot  will  serve  to  neu- 
tralize at  least  one  of  those  which  will  be  cast  in 
accordance  with  the  directions  of  the  German 
Ambassador,  as  payment  for  services  rendered  to 
Germany  in  her  hour  of  need.  Nor  need  we  fear 
that  it  will  come  about  that  Bernstorff  will  as  he 
hopes  to  do  cast  the  deciding  votes. 
Who  then  is  the  chief  betrayer  of  peace  and  inter- 
national justice,  the  chief  accomplice  of  the  Ger- 
man Emperor,  the  misleader  and  demoralizer  of 
neutrals  in  a  struggle  involving  the  survival  of 
human  rights?  I  have  given  the  facts  with  only 
such  primary  deductions  as  are  inescapable  and 
submit  the  question  as  one  worthy  of  close  con- 
sideration. 

MAUEICE  LEON. 
Irvington,  Westchester  Co.,  New  York, 
January  31st,  1916. 


42 


"REPRISALS"  AS  BEARING  ON  THE  LUSI 
TANIA  SETTLEMENT. 


REPRINTED    FROM    N.    Y.    WORLD,    FEB. 
10,  1916: 


Mr.  Leon's  New  Mare's  Nest. 


To  the  Editor  of  the  World: 

The  basis  of  the  settlement  of  the  Lusitania 
matter  as  just  given  out  by  the  State  Department 
begins  thus: 

"First — Germany,  while  considering  reprisals 
against  an  enemy  legal  and  knowing  that  the 
United  States  Government  regards  reprisals  as 
illegal,  admits  that  the  attack  upon  the  Lusitania 
was  an  act  of  retaliation  that  was  not  justifiable  in 
so  far  as  it  involved  the  lives  of  neutrals,  and 
also  assumes  liability  for  such  loss  of  neutral 
lives. ' ' 

This,  if  accepted,  constitutes  a  pledge  by  the 
United  States  to  Germany;  that  is,  it  is  a  deliber- 
ate acceptance  of  the  proposition  that  " reprisals' ' 
are  illegal. 

The  measures  of  the  allies  against  German 
commerce  on  the  high  seas  were  announced  as 
being  and  are  "reprisals." 

The  bargain  by  which  this  last  great  diplomatic 
victory  has  been  attained  has  been  well  known 
and  is  now  made  plain  to  all  in  writing.  It  is 
just  such  a  bargain  as  the  Administration  an- 
nounced repeatedly  it  would  not  make  under  any 
circumstances. 

The  Senate  of  the  United  States,  in  which  the 
Constitution  vests  the  real  power  over  our  for- 
eign relations,  should  immediately  take  notice  of 
this  extraordinary  bargain,  which,  if  lived  up  to, 
will  bring  the  United  States  into  the  war  on  the 
side  of  Germany. 

New  York,  Feb.  9.  MAURICE  LEON. 


43 


[Mr.  Leon  is  ingeniously,  methodically  and  most 
successfully  wrong  in  all  that  he  says.  The  doc- 
trine that  reprisals  are  illegal,  is  American  doc- 
trine, not  German  doctrine.  Germany  sought  to 
maintain  the  legality  of  reprisals  even  when  neu- 
tral lives  and  property  were  incidentally  de- 
stroyed, and  the  United  States  successfully  re- 
sisted the  contention. 

The  measures  taken  by  the  allies  against  Ger- 
man commerce  are  not  reprisals  and  were  never 
undertaken  as  reprisals,  unless  Mr.  Leon,  in  the 
process  of  manufacturing  his  own  international 
law,  chooses  to  regard  all  military  and  naval  oper- 
ations in  time  of  war  as  reprisals. 

As  for  the  " bargain* ■  about  which  Mr.  Leon 
is  so  excited,  that  too  is  a  product  of  his  person- 
ally conducted  imagination. — Ed.  World.] 


44 

REPRINTED    FROM   N.    J.    WORLD,    FEB. 
15, 1916: 


REPRISALS  IN  INTERNATIONAL  LAW. 


To  the  Editor  of  The  World: 

My  attention  is  called  to  the  editorial  note  which 
you  subjoin  in  printing  today  my  statement  re- 
garding the  basis  of  the  Lusitania  settlement. 

You  are  in  error  in  stating:  "The  measures 
taken  by  the  allies  against  German  commerce  are 
not  reprisals  and  were  never  undertaken  as  re- 
prisals. ' '  They  are  set  forth  in  the  British  orders 
in  Council  made  public  March  15,  1915,  which  use 
in  their  preamble  concerning  the  so-called  war- 
zone  decree  of  Germany  the  phrase,  "such  at- 
tempts on  the  part  of  the  enemy  give  *  *  *  an 
unquestionable  right  of  retaliation, ' '  and  continu- 
ing, state  that  it  has  "therefore"  been  "decided 
to  adopt  further  measures  in  order  to  prevent 
commodities  of  any  kind  from  reaching  or  leaving 
Germany. ' ' 

You  are  also  in  error  in  stating:  "The  doc- 
trine that  reprisals  are  illegal  is  American  doc- 
trine," &c.  Wheaton  (see  Part  4,  Chapter  II.) 
treats  thus  of  what  he  terms  "the  right  to  reprisal 
or  vindictive  retaliation": 

'  '  The  whole  international  code  is  founded  upon 
reciprocity.  The  rules  it  prescribes  are  observed 
by  one  nation,  in  confidence  that  they  will  be  so 
by  others.  Where,  then,  the  established  usages 
of  war  are  violated  by  an  enemy,  and  there  are  no 
other  means  of  restraining  his  excesses,  retalia- 
tion may  justly  be  resorted  to  by  the  suffering 
nation  in  order  to  compel  the  enemy  to  return  to 
the  observance  of  the  law  which  he  has  violated." 

Abraham  Lincoln  promulgated  on  April  24, 
1863  (Official  Eecords,  Series  3,  III,  151),  a  code 
of  war  for  the  Union  forces  in  which  the  following 
article  is  found: 


45 


4  '  27.  The  law  of  war  can  no  more  wholly  dispense 
with  retaliation  than  can  the  law  of  nations  of 
which  it  is  a  branch.  Yet  civilized  nations  ac- 
knowledge retaliation  as  the  sternest  feature  of 
war.  A  reckless  enemy  often  leaves  to  his  op- 
ponent no  other  means  of  securing  himself  against 
the  repetition  of  barbarous  outrage.' ■ 

Wheaton  and  Lincoln  set  forth  "American  doc- 
trine" which  I  prefer  to  that  of  Wilson  and  Lan- 
sing which  you  adopt. 

Lastly,  as  to  the  "bargain,"  my  imagination, 
of  which  you  say  it  is  a  product,  was  awakened 
by  The  World  when  it  published  the  now  famous 
"M.  P."  memorandum  found  in  the  portfolio  of 
Count  BernstorfT's  assistant,  Dr.  Albert,  report- 
ing a  conversation  had  by  "  M.  P. ' '  with  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  last  summer  in  which 
the  latter  is  credited  with  having  said  in  substance 
that  if  Germany  met  him  half  way  in  the  Lusi- 
tania  matter  he  would  deal  energetically  with  the 
allied  measures  against  trade  with  Germany. 
This  disclosure  stands  unexplained  either  by  "M. 
P."  (who  perhaps  is  known  to  The  World)  or 
by  the  White  House.  The  truthfulness  of  the  re- 
port by  "M.  P."  appears  corroborated  by  recent 
events,  such  as  the  efforts  made  to  deprive  mer- 
chant vessels  of  their  means  of  defense  against 
murderers  and  the  newly  revealed  intention  to  give 
Germany  a  pledge  to  maintain  a  hostile  attitude 
against  the  retaliatory  allied  measures  against 
German  commerce. 

I  concur  in  your  statement  that  "Germany 
sought  to  maintain  the  legality  of  reprisals 
even  when  neutral  lives  and  property  were  inci- 
dentally destroyed,' '  and  wish  it  might  be  true 
also,  as  you  say,  that  "the  United  States  success- 
fully resisted  the  contention. ' '  But  alas!  it  is  not. 

New  York,  Feb.  10.  MAURICE  LEON. 


46 


MERCHANT  VESSELS  ARMED  FOR 
DEFENSE 

REPRINTED     FROM     THE     NEW     YORK 
HERALD  OF  FEBRUARY  14th,  1916. 

"  INCENTIVE     GIVEN     TO     MURDER     TO 
INDUCE  THE  MURDERERS  TO  DESIST' ' 

Such  Is  Present  Policy  of  the  Administration, 
Necessitated  by  Ambition  for  Second  Term, 
Declares  Mr.  Maurice  Leon,  Who  Says  It  May 
Bring  United  States  Into  War  on  the  Side  of 
the  Turco-Teuton  Coalition 

Mr.  Maurice  Leon,  international  lawyer,  of  No. 
60  Wall  street,  who  is  considered  by  many  persons 
as  an  authority  on  foreign  relations,  has  addressed 
an  open  letter  to  Senator  Henry  Cabot  Lodge, 
protesting  against  the  German  and  Austrian 
policy  of  treating  as  war  ships  all  merchant  ves- 
sels which  are  armed  for  defence  purposes  and 
citing  what  he  declares  is  the  law  and  the  pre- 
vious rulings  of  officials  in  Washington  on  such 
cases.  He  said  that  a  precedent  was  established 
by  Lincoln  and  Seward,  when  they  during  the  civil 
war  exacted  of  commanders  of  Union  war  ships 
that  they  adhere  to  the  rules  of  stoppage  and 
search.  Mr.  Leon's  letter,  which  was  dated  yes- 
terday, is  as  follows: — 

"To  Honorable  Henry  Cabot  Lodge,  United 
States  Senate,  Washington,  D.  C. 

"Sir: — I  am  addressing  you,  since  it  has  proved 
useless  to  address  the  administration,  upon  the 
need  of  its  retracing  steps  which,  if  continued  as 
they  will  be  if  the  control  which  alone  the  Senate 
possesses  in  such  matters  is  not  exercised,  will 
bring  the  United  States  into  the  war  on  the  side 
of  the  Turco-Teutonic  coalition.  The  counsel  of 
the  senior  member  of  the  Senate  Committee  on 
Foreign  Eelations,  given  at  this  time,  would  be  of 


47 

inestimable  value  to  the  country.  Many  await  it 
and  are  hoping  you  will  not  withhold  it  any  longer. 

"When,  on  the  27th  ultimo,  the  press  gave  the 
first  inkling  of  the  administration's  new  depar- 
ture, I  sent  Mr.  Lansing  a  brief  review  of  the  cases 
in  which  the  arming  of  merchant  vessels  for  de- 
fense had  been  upheld  by  his  predecessors  and 
those  of  his  chief.  Because  that  right  was  exer- 
cised in  the  days  of  the  Rebellion  some  Union  war 
ships  had  found  it  safer  to  attack  without  warning 
merchant  vessels  carrying  non-combatants  than  to 
comply  with  the  rules  of  stoppage  and  search  of 
merchant  vessels,  whether  or  not  armed  for  de- 
fence. Lincoln  and  Seward  exacted  strict  respect 
for  these  rules,  although  this  meant  greater  risk 
for  the  LTnion  navy.  Today  the  rule  is  abandoned 
in  favor  of  submarine  cruisers,  which  are  better 
equipped. to  observe  it  than  were  the  surface  tor- 
pedo boats  of  the  Spanish-American  and  Russo- 
Japanese  wars,  which  no  one  dreamed  of  reliev- 
ing from  the  obligation  to  regard  it. 

* '  Every  day  that  has  passed  since  that  first  ink- 
ling came  from  Washington  has  made  greater  the 
determination  to  ignore  an  objection  founded 
upon  the  abandonment  of  an  American  birthright. 
This  because  the  objection  is  deemed  to  stand  in 
the  way  of  a  second  term.  Instead  it  is  sought  to 
vindicate  the  proposition  that  the  law  governing 
the  rights  of  merchant  vessels  in  times  of  war 
ought  to  be  revised  to  fit  the  uses  and  supposed 
limitations  of  the  submarine;  as  an  inducement 
to  murderers  to  desist  an  incentive  is  to  be  given 
to  murder  through  making  it  a  safer  and  surer 
occupation.  Thus  is  a  second  term  to  be  attained. 

"The  Senate,  as  the  supreme  authority  over  our 
foreign  relations,  may  well  ponder  this:  if  one 
of  the  laws  of  war,  which  are  part  of  the  law  of 
nations,  can  be  sacrificed  in  the  midst  of  a  great 
conflict,  it  is  not  true  also  that  all  the  laws  of 
war  oan  be  so  sacrificed,  with  the  result  that  a 


48 

neutrality,  defended  as  enabling  those  who 
maintain  it  to  preserve  human  rights,  is  used  to 
aid  those  engaged  in  the  abrogation  of  all  human 
rights. 

"Nothing  more  sinister  has  occurred  in  this 
country  during  this  war  than  the  issuance  of  the 
administration's  note  denying  the  right  of  mer- 
chant vessels  to  arm  for  defence,  followed  by  the 
publication  of  the  German  and  Austrian  decree 
declaring  that  on  and  after  March  1  merchant 
vessels  availing  of  that  right  will  be  treated  as 
war  ships ;  namely,  sunk  without  warning. 

"Americans  may  well  ask  to  what  extent  this 
is  due  to  the  existence  of  an  occult  link  between 
the  administration  and  the  German  Embassy  in 
the  person  of  William  G.  McAdoo  and  his  rich 
pro-German  associate.  I  refer  to  the  financial 
expert  who,  on  July  31,  1914,  at  the  very  moment 
Germany  was  launching  her  carefully  planned  war, 
relinquished  outwardly,  in  order  to  enter  the  Fed- 
eral Reserve  Board,  an  acknowledged  position  as 
the  chief  representative  in  America  of  the  Ger- 
man financial  general  staff,  a  position  which  ad- 
mittedly entailed  the  functions  of  private  financial 
adviser  to  the  German  Embassy,  for  which  serv- 
ices he  received  the  same  reward  in  1912 — one 
year  after  his  naturalization — which  has  just  been 
bestowed  upon  Major  von  Papen  for  services 
the  character  of  which  is  well  known. 

"The  harm  done  may  be  undone  in  large  part 
through  adoption  by  the  Senate  of  a  resolution  de- 
claring the  vicious  note  in  question  contrary  to 
American  policy.  T  hope  this  may  be  done  before 
the  situation  becomes  further  aggravated. 
"I  am,  sir,  yours  respectfully, 

"  "MAUKICE  LEON." 


49 

American  Precedents  Cited  by  Mr.  Leon. 

Herald  .bureau,  N o.  1502  H  Street,  N.  W., 
Washington,  D.  C,  Sunday. 

In  connection  with  the  statement  made  public 
in  New  York  tonight  by  Mr.  Maurice  Leon,  the 
Herald  Bureau  is  able  to  supply  a  copy  of  the  let- 
ter to  Mr.  Lansing  to  which  he  refers.  This  let- 
ter is  as  follows : — 

January  27,  1916. 
Hon.  Eobert  Lansing,  Secretary  of  State  of  the 

United  States,  Washington,  D.  C. : — 

Sir — A  Washington  despatch  published  today 
on  the  first  page  of  one  of  the  leading  New  York 
newspapers  states: — 

"The  German  position  is  such  that  it  had  been 
shown  a  German  submarine  was  responsible  for 
the  sinking  of  the  P.  &  0.  liner  Persia,  Germany 
would  have  regarded  the  attack  as  justifiable  in 
the  light  of  the  evidence  that  the  Persia  mounted 
a  4.7  inch  gun.  Both  Germany  and  Austria  are 
disposed  to  contend  that  the  arming  of  an  enemy 
merchantman  makes  it  virtually  an  auxiliary  ship 
of  war.  The  State  Department,  it  is  believed,  is 
almost  ready  to  take  a  similar  view.,, 

If  the  attitude  of  the  State  Department  is  cor- 
rectly reflected  in  this  despatch,  it  is  not  in  ac- 
cordance with  that  taken  by  the  department  under 
your  predecessors  and  upheld  by  the  courts  of  the 
United  States.  Mr.  Gresham,  Secretary  of  State, 
writing  to  the  American  Minister  of  Hayti  on 
January  21,  1894,  said: — 

"A  copy  of  your  No.  23  of  the  10th  instant,  in 
regard  to  the  case  of  the  American  schooner 
Water  Witch,  which  arrived  in  Haytian  waters 
with  two  cannon  and  sixty  pounds  of  powder  on 
board,  having  been  transmitted  to  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury,  that  official  has  replied  to  your 
inquiry  whether  sailing  vessels  of  the  United 
States  are  allowed  to  carry  any  armament  as 
ships'  stores,  or  otherwise,  that  the  laws  do  not 


50 

forbid  the  carrying  of  articles  of  the  character 
mentioned,  provided  there  shall  be  no  violation  of 
Chapter  67  of  the  Eevised  Statutes." 

In  United  States  vs.  Quicy,  6  Pet.  445,  it  was 
held  that  the  law  does  not  prohibit  armed  vessels 
belonging  to  citizens  of  the  United  States  from 
sailing  out  of  our  ports ;  it  only  requires  the  own- 
ers to  give  security  that  such  vessels  shall  not  be 
employed  by  them  to  commit  hostilities  against 
foreign  Powers  at  peace  with  the  United  States  (i. 
e.,  offensive  as  distinguished  from  defensive  acts). 

In  Cushing  vs.  United  States,  22  Ct.  CI.  1,  and 
Hooper  vs.  United  States,  22  Ct.  CI.  408,  the  seiz- 
ure by  France  of  an  American  merchantman  and 
her  condemnation  was  held  not  to  be  justified  by 
the  fact  that  she  was  armed  for  defensive  pur- 
poses. 

Other  items  published  today  indicate  a  general 
dread  that  the  administration  will  forsake  the 
burden  of  upholding  neutral  rights  before  the  de- 
termination so  abundantly  manifested  by  certain 
of  the  belligerents  to  continue  their  lawless  course 
toward  non-combatants  whenever  and  wherever 
superior  force  is  not  exerted  in  their  protection. 
It  is  even  said  that  the  requirement  of  visit  and 
search  is  to  be  waived,  and  the  practice  acquiesced 
in  by  which  non-combatants  are  taken  off  mer- 
chant vessels  at  sea  and  placed  in  lifeboats. 

If  these  items  correctly  reflect  the  present  at- 
titude of  the  State  Department  in  the  matter  of 
visit  and  search  and  the  safety  of  non-combatants 
at  sea,  that  attitude  is  not  in  accordance  with  that 
taken  by  the  department  under  your  predeces- 
sors. 

On  August  18,  1862,  Mr.  Welles,  Secretary  of 
the  Navy,  issued  instructions  to  naval  officers 
which  embodied  rules  transmitted  by  Mr.  Seward, 
Secretary  of  State,  by  direction  of  President  Lin- 
coln.   These  instructions  provided: — 


51 

* '  Secondly,  That  while  diligently  exercising  the 
right  of  visitation  on  all  suspected  vessels,  yon 
are  in  no  case  authorized  to  chase  and  fire  at  a 
foreign  vessel  without  showing  your  colors  and 
giving  her  the  customary  preliminary  notice  of  a 
desire  to  speak  and  visit  her." 

The  United  States'  instructions  to  blockading 
vessels  and  cruisers  during  the  Spanish-Ameri- 
can War  are  contained  in  General  Orders  No. 
492,  June  20,  1898  (Foreign  Eelations  1898,  781). 
They  provide : — 

"13.  This  right  should  be  exercised  with  tact 
and  consideration  and  in  strict  conformity  with 
treaty  provisions,  wherever  they  exist.  The  fol- 
lowing directions  are  given,  subject  to  any  special 
treaty  stipulations :  After  firing  a  blank  charge 
and  causing  the  vessel  to  lie  to  the  cruiser  shall 
send  a  small  boat,  no  larger  than  a  whaleboat, 
with  an  officer  to  conduct  the  search.  There  may 
be  arms  in  the  boat,  but  the  men  should  not  wear 
them  on  their  persons.  The  officer,  wearing  his 
side  arms,  and  accompanied  on  board  by  not  more 
than  two  of  his  boat's  crew,  unarmed,  should  first 
examine  the  vessel's  papers  to  ascertain  her 
nationality  and  her  ports  of  departure  and  destina- 
tion. If  she  is  neutral  and  trading  between  neu- 
tral ports  the  examination  goes  no  further.  If 
she  is  neutral  and  bound  to  an  enemy's  port  not 
blockaded,  the  papers  which  indicate  the  character 
of  her  cargo  should  be  examined.  If  these  show 
contraband  of  war  the  vessel  should  be  seized;  if 
not,  she  should  be  set  free,  unless,  by  reason  of 
strong  grounds  of  suspicion,  a  further  search 
should  seem  to  be  requisite." 

Ever  since  these  rules,  namely,  as  to  the  law- 
fulness of  merchant  vessels  being  armed  for  de- 
fence and  as  to  the  prerequisite  of  visit  and  seach 
before  seizure  of  a  merchant  vessel,  became  part 
of  the  law  of  nations,  vessels  of  war  have  incurred 
a  certain  risk  in  their  operations  as  commerce  de 


52 


fitroyers.  Armed  merchant  vessels  have  been 
known  to  resist  capture,  and  in  defending  them- 
selves against  capture  to  inflict  injury  upon  the 
pursuing  cruiser. 

Until  to-day  no  President  and  no  Secretary  of 
State  of  the  United  States  had  been  induced  to 
accept  the  view  that  the  law  of  nations  should  be 
drafted  to  make  commerce  destroying  in  that 
respect  a  safer  proceeding  than  it  has  been.  In 
the  case  of  submarines  the  risk  of  injury  through 
merchant  vessels  armed  for  defence  resisting  the 
exercise  of  the  belligerent  right  of  visit  and  search 
is  only  in  degree  greater  than  that  of  other  war 
vessels.  Nor  is  it  inconceivable  that  in  the  near 
future  a  submarine  should  be  evolved  which  shall 
be  no  more  vulnerable  than  a  torpedo  boat  de- 
stroyer or  light  cruiser  armed  with  torpedo  tubes. 
Indeed,  it  is  said  that  new  types  of  submarines  are 
now  in  commission  which  compare  quite  favorably 
to  surface  vessels  in  those  respects.  It  is  entirely 
probable  that  if  these  rules,  the  abrogation  of 
which  it  is  said  the  State  Department  is  willing 
to  concede,  had  not  been  respected  during  the 
Spanish-American  and  Eusso-Japanese  wars, 
there  would  have  been  instances  where  torpedo 
boat  destroyers  and  light  cruisers  armed  with 
torpedo  tubes  would  have  found  it  a  less  risky 
procedure  to  torpedo  armed  merchant  vessels 
without  warning  than  to  comply  with  the  practice 
prescribed  for  the  American  navy  by  direction  of 
President  Lincoln  and  which  was  again  prescribed 
under  the  Presidency  of  William  McKinley  when 
the  United  States  was  at  war. 

Even  in  the  days  of  the  Civil  War  firing  on  a 
merchant  vessel  without  visit  and  search  was  con- 
sidered a  safer  procedure  by  some  war  vessels; 
early  in  August,  1862,  Mr.  Stuart,  British  Charge 
d'Aff aires  ad  interim,  represented  to  your  pre- 
decessor, Mr.  Seward,  on  the  strength  of  informa- 


53 

tion  received  from  naval  officers  that  a  British 
steamer  had  been  chased  and  fired  on  by 
a  United  States  cruiser  without  display  of  her 
colors  and  had  then  been  captured  without  search. 
It  was  this  instance  which  led  Abraham  Lincoln  to 
give  the  instructions  issued  through  Mr.  Welles  to 
the  American  Navy  on  August  18,  1862,  the  text 
of  which  is  given  above. 

The  fear  existing  at  the  present  time  that  the 
government  of  the  United  States  has  the  intention 
of  conceding  the  right  to  commerce  destroyers  to 
dispose  of  the  passengers  and  crews  of  merchant 
vessels  by  having  them  placed  in  lifeboats  would 
be  absurd  if  so  much  had  not  already  been  done  in 
surrender  of  neutral  rights.  Need  I  tell  you  that 
at  no  time  has  such  practice  been  sanctioned  or 
tolerated  by  a  civilized  nation?  In  that  connec- 
tion your  attention  is  invited  to  the  work  of  your 
learned  predecessor  in  the  office  of  Counsellor  of 
the  State  Department,  Mr.  John  Bassett  Moore, 
who  in  his  International  Law  Digest  reviews  in 
Vol.  VIL,  pp.  516-527,  the  "question  of  destruc- 
tion''  of  merchant  vessels  captured  as  prizes. 

Following  the  first  news  of  the  sinking  of  the 
Persia,  Washington  despatches  were  forwarded  to 
several  prominent  New  York  daily  newspapers, 
which  published  them  on  the  3d  inst.,  setting  forth 
that  "high  officials  of  the  State  Department" 
thought  it  likely  that  the  Persia  had  been  sunk  by 
a  "Turkish  submarine' '  which  had  been  able  to 
get  through  owing  to  the  abandonment  of  the 
Dardanelles  operations.  (Incidentally,  the  aband- 
onment of  land  operations  had  not  affected  the 
Allied  naval  blockade  at  the  Dandanelles,  a  fact 
generally  known  outside  of  Washington.)  The 
despatches  announced  that  if  this  theory  of  the 
State  Department  should  be  confirmed,  the  De- 
partment purposed  to  make  the  same  demands 
npon  Turkey  which  it  had  previously  made  on 


54 

Germany  and  Austria.  Since  that  time,  at  every 
suggestion  that  the  "Turkish  submarine*'  theory 
advanced  by  the  State  Department  might  be  con- 
firmed— recently  such  a  suggestion  emanated  from 
Berlin  via  Amsterdam — the  cartoonists  and  comic 
writers  have  been  practically  the  only  contrib- 
utors to  the  daily  press  to  take  notice  of  the  matter 
and  they  have  done  so  in  a  manner  so  effective 
that  the  "Turkish  submarine"  theory  has  ap- 
parently been  thrown  into  the  discard. 

Far  more  sinister  is  the  suggestion  now  made 
that  the  President  of  the  United  States  and  his 
Secretary  of  State,  rather  than  perform  the  duty 
devolving  upon  them  to  get  at  the  truth  concerning 
the  Persia  and  visit  upon  those  responsible  for 
this  atrocious  wholesale  murder  the  punishment 
which  alone  will  serve  as  a  deterrent,  are  ready 
to  throw  to  the  wild  beasts  of  the  sea  the  bruised 
body  of  the  justice  which  hitherto  has  presided 
over  the  councils  in  which  the  foreign  affairs  of 
the  United  States  are  conducted  through  sur- 
render of  vital  rights  heretofore  upheld  in  the  de- 
fence of  the  lives  and  property  of  non-combatants 
at  sea. 

Can  it  be  true? 

Shall  it  be  said  when  the  history  of  this  period 
is  written  that  rights  which  the  sailors  of  the 
American  navy  and  of  other  navies  were  ever 
expected  to  respect,  even  though  thereby  their 
lives  should  be  imperiled,  were  sacrificed  by  the 
successors  of  Lincoln  and  Seward  for  the  benefit 
of  a  navy  whose  officers  and  sailors  kill  non- 
combatants  without  warning  rather  than  take  the 
risk  necessarily  inherent  in  warfare?  Is  it  in 
this  way  that  the  pen  can  be  proved  to  be  mightier 
than  the  sword  f  It  cannot  be  by  such  proceedings 
the  administration  would  dream  of  undertaking 
to  act  as  the  ' '  spokesman  of  humanity. ' '  "Will  not 
all  say/ i  This,  then,  is  what  is  meant  by '  too  proud 


55 

to  fight, '  9 '  i.  e.,  that  the  administration  will  assist 
in  making  the  murder  of  American  citizens  easy 
rather  than  uphold  established  international  law? 
Respectfully  yours, 

MAURICE  LEON. 


[Note:  Announcement  of  the  Administration's  change  of 
attitude  on  this  question  was  made  following  a  cabinet  meeting 
held  on  February  15th,  after  Senator  Sterling  of  South  Dakota 
had  introduced  the  resolution  advocated  in  the  open  letter  to 
Senator  Lodge  and  it  had  been  announced  by  these  Senators 
that  they  proposed  to  discuss  the  subject  in  the  Senate  two 
days  later. 

Time  will  tell  whether  a  virile  policy  is  to  be  followed 
henceforth  at  Washington.     M.  L.     March  8th,  1916.] 


REPRINTED  FROM  NEW  YORK  TRIBUNE 
OF  MARCH  10,  1916. 

ARMED  TRADERS  AND  PRIVATEERS. 


The  Case  of  the  Kronprinz  Wilhelm  Considered 
in  the  Light  of  Germany's  Plea — Need  for 
Armament  Shown  to  be  as  Great  Now  as  in 
Former  Naval  Wars. 

To  the  Editor  of  The  Tribune: 

Sir:  The  distinction  between  merchant  ves- 
sels armed  for  offence  and  those  armed  for  de- 
fence has  been  practically  illustrated  in  the  re- 
spective cases  of  the  Moewe  and  the  Appam.  It 
will  be  recalled  that  the  Moewe,  with  two  heavy 
batteries  of  8-inch  guns,  overtook  the  Appam, 
which  was  armed  with  but  two  3-inch  guns,  and 
that  the  difference  in  armament  was  sufficient  to 
induce  the  Appam  to  surrender  without  resist- 
ance. The  Moewe  in  turn  gave  practical  illustra- 
tion of  the  manner  in  which  a  merchant  ship  may 
be  captured  in  accordance  with  international  law 
by  achieving  the  capture  of  the  Appam  without 
murder. 


56 

The  Moewe 's  conduct  in  the  premises  estab- 
lished another  point — namely,  that  vessels  which 
are  capable  of  conducting  cruiser  warfare  in  ac- 
cordance with  international  law  are  likely  to  live 
up  to  those  rules  laid  down  for  them.  The  Moewe, 
you  will  recall,  was  large  enough  to  hold  a  prize 
crew  to  be  placed  on  board  the  Appam,  and  large 
enough  even  to  have  taken  over  the  passengers 
and  crew  of  the  Appam  had  the  exigencies  of 
warfare  made  it  necessary  for  her  to  sink  her 
prize.  When  the  actual  experience  of  modern 
warfare,  as  conducted  by  one  vessel  of  the  Ger- 
man navy,  so  manifestly  establishes  the  lawless- 
ness of  the  Germans'  use  of  the  submarine,  it  is 
a  waste  of  time  to  argue  the  matter  hypothetically. 

There  is  another  aspect,  however,  of  the  case 
of  the  Moewe  type  of  armed  vessels  which  shows 
that  the  law  allowing  the  armament  of  merchant 
vessels  for  defence  is  not  obsolete,  but  has  appli- 
cations entirely  warranted  by  the  developments 
of  present-day  war.  Nor  are  these  developments 
of  very  recent  date.  I  have  in  mind  a  case  be- 
longing to  the  earliest  phase  of  the  war,  the  case 
of  the  German  privateer  Kronprinz  Wilhelm.  I 
use  the  word  " privateer' '  advisedly. 

The  Kronprinz  Wilhelm  arrived  in  the  Port  of 
New  York  prior  to  the  outbreak  of  hostilities.  The 
Treasury  authorities  allowed  her  to  sail  from  New 
York  two  days  after  Germany  had  declared  war 
upon  Eussia  and  some  six  hours  after  the  delivery 
of  Germany 's  declaration  of  war  against  France 
had  been  published  in  New  York  and  Washing- 
ton. She  did  not  sail  with  the  same  "peace"  crew 
with  which  she  came  in,  but  with  a  special  war 
crew  recruited  on  American  territory  from  among 
members  of  the  German  Naval  Reserve  in  this 
port.  She  sailed,  giving  her  destination  as  Brem- 
en, but  with  three  times  as  much  coal  on  board  as 
she  could  possibly  need  for  the  voyage  mentioned 
in  her  clearance  papers.    Representatives  of  the 


57 

press  wrote  accounts  which  were  published  in  the 
early  afternoon,  at  the  same  time  that  Germany's 
declaration  of  war  against  France  was  published, 
telling  how  they  had  been  excluded  from  the  dock 
to  which  the  ship  was  tied  just  as  long  cases,  which 
they  took  to  contain  guns,  were  being  placed  on 
board. 

In  the  early  evening  I  sought  to  reach  the  Col- 
lector of  the  Port  of  New  York,  was  unable  to  do 
so,  but  spoke  to  the  special  Deputy  Collector.  I 
told  him  that,  acting  purely  as  a  citizen,  I  re- 
quested that  the  Kronprinz  be  detained  pending 
an  investigation  of  the  errand  upon  which  she 
was  about  to  sail.  He  replied  to  me  that  the  Col- 
lector of  the  Port  had  already  made  such  investi- 
gation and  had  entirely  satisfied  himself  that  the 
Kronprinz  was  not  sailing  upon  any  mission  hos- 
tile to  the  nations  with  which  Germany  was  at 
war.  The  next  day  I  read  in  the  newspapers  that 
the  "  investigation "  consisted  in  taking  the  affi- 
davit of  the  captain  of  the  Kronprinz  that  he  had 
no  arms  on  board  and  that  Bremen  was  his  bona 
fide  destination. 

It  is  now  undisputed  that  the  Kronprinz  went 
out  under  instructions  to  get  in  touch  with  the 
German  cruiser  Karlsruhe  and  be  governed  by 
the  directions  of  the  captain  of  that  warship ;  also 
that  she  actually  met  the  Karlsruhe  on  the  high 
seas  and  transferred  to  her  a  large  quantity  of 
coal  and  thereupon  hoisted  the  German  naval  en- 
sign and  proceeded  upon  commerce  raiding  oper- 
ations ;  that  she  thereafter  sank  a  number  of  ships 
including  the  French  liner  Guadeloupe,  after 
which  she  sought  and  obtained  the  protection  of 
this  government  at  Norfolk,  Va.,  where,  instead 
of  being  libelled  and  her  officers  and  crew  arrested 
as  they  should  have  been,  to  answer  for  the  con- 
spiracy against  the  United  States  in  furtherance 
of  which  she  sailed  from  New  York  under  false 
clearance  papers,  she  was  allowed  to  intern  and 


58 


the  "parole"  of  her  officers  accepted,  which  I 
understand  most  of  them  have  since  broken. 
Hence,  I  say  advisedly  that  the  Kronprinz  was 
a  M privateer." 

Recent  dispatches  have  intimated  that  other 
German  commerce  destroyers  are  now  on  the 
high  seas  which  left  neutral  ports  as  neutral  mer- 
chant vessels,  their  case  being  only  to  the  extent 
of  such  use  of  a  neutral  flag  more  flagrant  than 
that  of  the  Kronprinz  Wilhelm.  Since,  however, 
Germany,  in  defiance  of  treaties  and  of  modern 
international  law,  has  actually  used  privateers  in 
this  war  she  has  thereby  taken  the  very  ground 
from  under  the  feet  of  those  of  her  apologists  who 
in  Congress  and  out  of  Congress  have  urged  that 
the  rule  in  favor  of  the  defensive  armament  of 
merchant  vessels  is  one  which  ceased  to  have  rea- 
son for  existence  since  the  disappearance  of  pri- 
vateers. 

But  their  arguments  overlook  another  fact  so 
striking  that  its  lesson  has  been  driven  home  to 
the  whole  civilized  world — namely,  that  in  view  of 
the  murders  perpetrated  by  their,  use  the  Teutonic 
submarines  have  revived  another  old  classification 
of  vessels  belonging  to  the  days  of  lawless  war- 
fare, that  of  the  Corsairs.  How  else  are  they  to 
be  described  after  the  record  of  the  last  year?  It 
seems,  therefore,  begging  the  whole  question  to 
say  that  the  conditionswhich  led  to  the  arming  for 
defence  of  merchant  vessels  no  longer  exist,  when 
as  a  matter  of  fact  they  do  exist  in  aggravated 
form. 

But,  as  shown  by  Senators  Lodge  and  Sterling, 
the  rule  since  its  origin  has  been  extended  to  the 
point  where  long  prior  to  this  war  it  was  gener- 
ally recognized  as  lawful  for  a  merchant  vessel  to 
resist  capture,  even  by  a  regularly  commissioned 
war  vessel  operating  in  accordance  with  the  law 
of  nations,  using  for  the  purpose  her  defensive 
armament ;  and  that  neither  the  possession  of  such 


59 


armament  nor  the  instructions  for  its  use,  but 
only  actual  resistance  to  capture  after  a  request 
to  stop,  justifies  an  attack  by  a  warship  against  a 
merchant  vessel.  It  is  in  order  to  avoid  risk 
which  was  ever  inherent  to  warfare  that  the  Ger- 
mans would  seek  to  change  the  law  of  nations  in 
that  regard. 

MAURICE  LEON. 
New  York,  March  6,  1916. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWE 
LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below, 
on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall 


31MAR'59DF 


RCC'D  LP 


MAR  2  2  1959 


MAY    91987 


MJTO 


TjlSG 


w& 


hw 


LD  21A-50m-9,'58 
(6889sl0)476B 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


Gaylord  Bros. 

Maker* 


Syracuse 


N.Y 


?«.!«.«.»" 


U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARI 


L 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


,'i"    ,.':'-."  :.,■■".  '•■    \"  ;■■,■■■     ■:..'•■''     '■-.  -';      •-■  ■      -.  '.'-■    :■   '-;   ;•-    •'-  '  ■■-  '  *,/.-  ■*         •     "  ■ 

-  —  :-  -  -..:■' ;  -       -  ■:  .  .  .-.-■.■-     .      -        ■■■•.  --  '       :  :■  » 


